Pi 






m 


^^ 


^ /f4 ..:;:■ 


m 



; i 






8 



1 



Ii 



^ llplf 




»Wf 


'i^wHj^^^W 




^\jf^ ^ 


V 


.liMlk. «« J0^^ 




i^ltOi 


ir 


■ 







vl **l?^ .^ '^z^' 



i«.. 



The Better Testament; 

or, 

THE TWO TESTAMENTS COMPARED. 



Demonstrating the Superiority of The Gospel over Moses' Law 

According to 

The Epistles of Paul, Especially That Addressed to the 

.... HEBREWS .... 



By WM. G. SCHELL. 



"By so much was Jesm made a surety of a better testament.'' — Heb. 7:23, 



^^ggU 



MOUNDSVILLE, W- VA., U. S. A. 

GOSPEL TRUMPET PUBLISHING COMPANY. 
1899. 



TWO COPIES RLj_:ivc 

library of CcBgpet,^ 
Office of tks 

JAN 2 5 1900 

RegUt.r cf Co;.yrlgfat* 






51582 



Copyrighted, 1899, 

By 
WM. G. SCHELL. 



StCOND COPY, 






PREFACE. 

IjiT the name of the holy trinity this volume has been 
written and is now offered to the public with the prayer 
that our heavenly Parent will bless it to the enlighten- 
ment of many a soul, who may, by perusing its con- 
tents be led to the all-cleansing fountain where free- 
dom from sin may be obtained. 

We have adhered mainly to the intention expressed 
in the Introduction to establish the glorious doctrine 
of holiness in the mind of the reader — and have there- 
fore, after thoroughly discussing the validity of 
Moses' law in the first part of the book, only treated 
such themes as may be considered kindred to the 
doctrine of holiness. 

Throughout the book the author has indulged liber- 
ally in the use of premises that may at first glance be 
viewed with suspicion by both teachers and opposers 
of the doctrine of holiness; but believing that they 
have been given by the Spirit of God, he is inclined 
to believe that their plausibility will be discernea by 
every careful reader. 

The author believes that this book is not unlike other 
books, in that it will be found to contain some errors, 
lie also believes that special reliance upon the guidance 
o\ Ihe Holy Spirit li;?? prevented a great many mis- 



vi PKEFACE. 

takes that otherwise would have crept into its contents. 
Let the reader submit this volume to the same rules of 
criticism unto which he would submit other books, 
and that which will not stand the test of the most 
scrutinizing examination, in the light of God's word, 
is hereby recalled and apologized for. But that the 
incontrovertible arguments employed to substantiate 
the premises that are truly based upon the Holy Scrip- 
tures, may, independent of preconceived ideas, be 
devoutly believed by the reader, is the sincere prayer 
of the Author. 

Moundsville^ W, Va.^ Nov. 8^ 1899. 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction ------ 9 

The Two Covenants - - . - - - - 14 

The Old Covenant ----- 20 

The New Covenant - - - - - - 27 

1 he Fii*st Covenant Done Away - - - - 34 

Keasons Why the Old Covenant Could Not Remain in Force 

in the New Dispensation - - - - 37 

Tiie Two Laws - - - - - - -46 

The Law of Works and the Law of Faith - - - 51 

The Yoke of Bondage and the Law of Liberty - - 57 

The Abolition of the Law^ of Moses - - - OG 

The Relation of the Tw o Testaments - - - - 79 

The False Claim of Two Laws in the Old Testament - 85 
The Shadow of Pleavenly Things and Heavenly Things 

Themselves - . . - - 93 

The Types of the Old Testament Ex[)lained - - - 97 

The Better Testament - - - - - 107 

The Better Promises ------ 112 

The Better Sacrifice - - - - - 129 

The Better Priesthood - - - - - 137 

Spiritual Sacrifices - - - - - - 146 

The Better Salvation - - - - - - 151 

The Better Salvation Explained - - - - 162 

Bearing the Cross ------ 166 

Present and Future Salvation - - - - 175 

A New Creation - - - - - - 181 

Twofold Salvation - - - - - 188 

Two Works of (J race Ixeceived by the Apostles and Their 

Converts --*-__- 202 
The Two Works of (i race Typified by the Tabernacle of Moses 

and Its Services - - - - - 216 

The Forsaking of All and Consecration . . - 221 

The Better Justification ----- 232 

Spiritual Birth - - - - - - 241 

Repentance ------ 245 

All Lived Under Sin Before the Coming of Christ - - 253 
All Children of God Live Without Committing Sin under 

the New Testament ----- 260 



VIU COKTE^^TS 

AVliat Is (Onniiiuiiig Sin? _ _ - - 266 

lloliness-opjosers Driven from the New Testament - - 272 

The Better Saveii 'cation . _ . - 281 

Holy and Perfect :\[en of the Old Dis[ ensation - - 289 

Holiness Our Onlv Hope of Heaven - - - 293 

Holiness to Be Obtained in This Life - - - 299 

Perfect Holiness ------ 30.'^ 

The Fruits of Holiness . - . - - 309 

iSanctiiication an Instantaneous Change of Nature - 31o 

Sanctification a Second Work of Grace _ - - 320 

(i rafting, Pruning, and Purging - - - - 32'") 

The 'i'ithina- Systeai Abolished - - - - 329 

The Better Financial System .... 332 

Cay>ital Punishment ..-.-- 341 

Matrimonv Eestored to the Edenic Standard - - 349 

" * " '' '' '' —Concluded - 357 

A Higher Standard of Healing . - . - 368 

A Better Access to God - - - - - 371 

K^st -.--.-- 376 

The Church of God under the Old Testament - - 385 

The Better Church of God under the New Testament - 399 
Human Ecclesiastical Organizations Modeled after the Church 

of the Old Testament . - . . 405 

Jerusalem Which Is Above, or the New Jerusalem - - 409 



The Better Testament. 




INTRODUCTION. 



m 



Nc^|;HIRTEE]Sr years of experience in the gos- 
^t pel work has fully established in my mind 
the fact that the masses of to-day are not 
in possession of a correct knowledge of the 
privileges afforded them in Christ. The real sublin^ity 
of the promises of the gospel, and the superior! cy of 
the New Testament over the Mosaic system seems not 
to have been fathomed by the church since the great 
apostasy. This solemn truth of which I have been so 
fully convinced is my chief apology for the birth of this 
volume, which has been entitled, The Better Tes- 
tament. 

Having been an advocate of the doctrine of holiness 
from the time I preached my first sermon, I have had 
the sad opportunity of learning that the majority of 
our fellow creatures are inclined to oppose this most 
sacred of Bible doctrines; and being fully convinced 
by a prayerful study of God's holy word that it is a 
misapprehension of the gospel itself that causes men to 

oppose the doctrine of holiness, I am forced into the 

9 



lO THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

belief that I can do nothing to more siiccossfully 
advance the cause of holiness than to set foitli u thor- 
ough delineation of the character of the Xew Testa- 
ment. Men will not oppose the doctrine of holiness 
when they possess a correct understanding of the Xew 
Testament. My experience with the op]>osers of holi- 
ness has developed within me the con\iction that they, 
as a rule, are unable to draw the lines between the Old 
and the New Testament, where they are drawn in the 
word of God. While they profess to base their faith 
on the New Testament, the moral privileges held up 
by them and the standard of righteous living they 
advocate are in reality the standard held up in the 
Old Testament. In fact, the pulpits do not discrimi- 
nate between the Old and the New Testament. The 
law of Moses and the gospel of Christ are so conglom- 
erated by those who profess to be the ministers of the 
gospel, that the hearers are completely confused. Their 
faith is neither law nor gospel, but a mixture of the 
two ; and as the two systems are so widely different, peo- 
ple with no correct knowledge of the true di\ Idiug line 
between the Old and the New Testament, are led into 
a state of instability, with respect to their standard of 
believing; and by the very reading of the Bible itself, 
with such dark spectacles on, they are led to change- 
ableness. 

I would exhort all true ministers of the gospel, 
who desire to propagate the doctrine of holiness, to 
give this subject special attention, and be sure that in 



INTRODLCTIOX. ll 

all your gospel meetings people are enabled to soe the 
difference between the law of Moses and the perfect 
law of liberty. If the people have never been in- 
structed with respect to the superiority of the new cov- 
enant over the old, can we be surprised if they endeavor 
to oppose the doctrine of holiness with the low stan- 
dard advocated in the Old Testament? Explain to the 
people the New Testament, the mission of Christ, and 
the sublimity of the gospel, and do not fear to adm't 
that all the world was in sin up to the incarnation of 
the Savior, and you will hold before the masses incon- 
trovertible arguments. 

It has been some time since I first advanced the idea 
that all the opposers of holiness were void of an 
understanding of the New Testament itself, and [ still 
adhere to it. If we can succeed in making all men see 
the mission of Christ to this world and the superiority 
of the New Testament over the Old Testament, we 
shall have converted them to the doctrine of holiness. 

Many holiness people seem to think that they can 
not properly defend the doctrine of holiness exce] t 
they try to prove that every pious man since the 
creation of Adam possessed it and lived it in this 
world. In this they make a great blunder, and not 
only do they lift up ideas that are script urally untrue, 
but they befog the mind of the hearer until he is ren- 
dered incapable of learning the doctrine of holiness. 
The fact that all men were in sin and lived in i^ n^ 
whose lives were passed before the birth of our Savior, 



13 THE BETTER TESTA :MENT. 

is too plainly set forth in the Bible to be controverted. 
If the poor sinner should hear us teach that Old Testa- 
ment patriarchs and prophets possessed the experience 
of holiness the same as New Testament saints, and 
then should read in the Old Testament that there was 
not a just man upon earth in those days who dia good 
nnd sinned not, he would generally find a hindrance to 
his faith in the genuineness of the doctrine of holiness. 

What is still worse, to hold that men before the 
coming of Christ could be justified and sanctified and 
live just as pure and holy as they can since the coming 
of the Savior is, in one sense, denying Christ; for if 
that be true, our Lord's incarnation is of no benefit to 
the world, and he had as well remained in heaven 
where he was. The fact is, man did not gain complete 
victory over sin until the shedding of the precious blood 
of our Lord. This point I shall specially argue in the 
following pages. There is no truth more prominent 
in the w^ord of God than that the possession of the 
experience of holiness is a thing peculiar to the New 
'i'estament dispensation. 

It might also be suggested to holiness-opposers that 
they are, every time they affirm that we can not gain 
perfect victory over sin in this life, indulging in a 
denial of our Lord. If it were true, as they teach, that 
we can not in the New Testament dispensation obtain 
grace from God to live without committing sin, the New 
Testament is in no way superior to the Old, and we can 
not since our Lord's coming live any better lives than 



INTRODUCTION. 13 

men lived before his coming; and therefore his coming 
is of no value to the world. I pray God that all my 
readers may solemnly consider these sacred thoughts 
upon which hangs the eternal destiny of the souls 
of all men. 

Xot only with respect to our moral privileges are 
men unable to draw the lines between the Old and the 
Xew Testament, but they also commingle the ceremo- 
nies and doctrines in general of the two systems. We 
mean to charge this as a crime upon the pulpit agents. 
The masses, left as they are in a confused state, are in 
many cases constrained to take up one or more of the 
principles of the Old Testament to adopt as a plank 
in a professedly Xew Testament creed. This is entirely 
the result of an inability to draw the lines between the 
Old and the Xew Testament. The people should be 
instructed to base their faith and confide their hopes 
exclusively in the Xew Testament and to look upon 
the Old Testament as a merely temporary arrangement 
that ended with the death of our Savior. 

We are not discarding the inspiration of the Old 
Testament by thus setting it aside in this sublime 
gospel age, but contrariwise, we are establishing its 
inspiration; for the Old Testament teaches that it 
should serve only a temporary purpose and should not 
be considered a standard of government for the people 
of God, after the ushering in of the sublime system 
which our Lord brought from heaven. 



14 lilt: BETTER TESTAMENT. 

THE TWO covexa:nts. 



The word covenant is used in two senses in the 
Bible. In some instances it signifies a mere agree- 
ment, but the prevailing signification is that of a dis- 
pensation, or code of laws. It is translated fiom the 
, Hebrew word btriyth in the Old Testament and the 
Greek diathelce in the ISTew Testament. The Greek 
word is defined by lexicographers as follows: 

^'Diatliel'e — any disposition, arrangement, ijistitu- 
tion, or dispensation; hence a testament, will. Heb. 
9:1(), Yiy—GveehfieU, 

'''' Diaihelie — a disposition, arrangement; a testament, 
a law: the Abrahamic covenant; the Mosaic covenant, 
entered into at Sinai, with sacrifices, and the blood of 
victims (See Ex. 24:3-12; Dent. 5:2.); the ik\v cove- 
nant, the go^^pel dispensation." — RoMnsons Lexicon, 

"Thus the covenant of Sinai was conditioned by the 
observance of the ten commandments (Ex. 34:27, 28; 
Lev. 26:15), which are therefore called Jehovah's cove- 
nant (Deut. 4:13), a name which was extended to all 
the books of Moses, if not to the whole body of Jewish 
canonical scriptures. 2 Cor. 3:13, 14. This last 
mentioned covenant, which was renewed at different 
periods, is one of the two principal covenants between 
God and man. They are distinguished as old and new 
(Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-13; 10:16)."— /S/^?////, and 
]}((}• nnm^s Dictio-nary. 

From these definitions we see that the orisrinal word 



THE TWO C0V::XA2^TS. 15 

for covenant^ which is frequently translrO-ted testanioit, 
signifies a dispensation, or code of laws. God has 
delivered unto man at different periods two such codes. 
They are distinguished in the word of God by the 
terms *'old covenant," and '*new covenant"; "Old 
Testnnient" and "i^ew Testament"; "first testa- 
ment" and "second testament"; "law" and "gospel"; 
etc. I shall proceed to show the dates and places 
where each of these covenants was revealed, the blood 
by which each was sealed, their mediators, etc. 

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye 
not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham 
had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a 
freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was 
born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by 
promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are 
the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, 
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this 
x\gar is mount Sinai in x\rabia, and answereth to Jeru- 
salem which now is, and is in bondage with her chil- 
dren. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is; 
the mother of us all."— Gal. 4:21-26. 

The apostle here denominates the account of Abra- 
ham's two wives in Genesis an allegory. \Ye are not 
to understand from this that it is not a historical fact, 
but as Abraham's wives perfectly typified the two 
covenants, the apostle took license to consider the 
account an allegorical description of the two great 
divine codes of law in the Bible. Agar, who was 



16 THE IJKTTEK TESTAMENT. 

Abraham's bondwife, he tells us, signifies the covenant 
which came from mount Sinai. The freewoman he 
seems to associate with Jerusalem which is above, 
that is "above the hills" (Isa. 2:2-4), which is the 
Xew Testament church; therefore the covenant signi- 
fied by the freewoman must be the new covenant. 

The place where the new covenant was revealed is 
not stated in this text, but if we turn to the prophecies 
by Isaiah, we find it predicted concerning the new^ 
covenant: ''Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and 
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." — Isa. 2:3. 
Micah also predicted concerning the new covenant: 
for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of 
the Lord from Jerusalem." — Mic. 4:2. From these 
prophecies we see that the second, or new, covenant was 
to be revealed in Zion. Sinai, as stated by Paul, is in 
Arabia, but mount Zion is Bethlehem near Jerusalem. 

The commission of Christ unto his apostles, recorded 
in Luke 24:46, 47, shows that these prophecies were 
fulfilled in the giving of the Xew Testament. ''Thus 
it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and 
to rise from the dead the third day: and that repen- 
tance and remission of sins should be preached in his 
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." 
The gospel was to go forth into all the world, but 
should begin at Jerusalem; and we are told in the 
historical part of the Xew Testament that the apostles 
did first thoroughly indoctrinate Jerusalem, after which 
they went forth into all the world. In this the 



THE TWO COVENANTS. 17 

reader may see the fulfillment of the prophecy that 
)iit of Zion should go forth the law, and the word of 
Llie Lord from Jerusalem. 

The two mountains upon which the two covenants 
were revealed are very plainly set forth in the twelfth 
chapter of Hebrews. 'Tor ye are not come unto 
the mount that might be touched, and that burned 
with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tem- 
pest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of 
words; which voice they that heard entreated that the 
word should not be spoken any more (for they could 
not endure that which was commanded, and if so much 
as a beast touch the mountain, it ishall be stoned, or 
thrust through with a dart: and so terrible was the 
sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake): 
but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of 
the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an 
innumerable company of angels, to the general assem- 
bly and church of the first-born, which are written in 
heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits 
of just men made perfect, and to Josus the mediator 
of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, 
that speaketh better things than that of Abel." — 
Verses 18-24. 

The mount that might be touched, mentioned above, 
that burned with fire, surrounded with blackness and 
darkness and tempest, is mount Sinai, where the first 
covenant was revealed. Mount Sion is an ancient 
name of the city of Bethlehem, a suburb of ancient 

2 



18 THE BETTER TESTAME:N^T. 

Jerusalem, which was the biith place of Christ. 
2 Sam. 5:7-9; Luke 2:4. The expression, "Ye are not 
come unto the mount that might be touched, . . . bat 
ye are come unto m^'Unt Sion," signifies that we arc 
not now governed by that code of laws given on mount 
Sinai, but by the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, re- 
vealed at mount Sion by the bii th of Christ. 

Both these covenants have been dedicated by blood. 
The blood of the old covenant is described by Paul in 
Hib. 9:18-20 — "Yvliereupon neither the first Testa- 
ment was dedicated without blood. For when Moses 
had spoken every precept to all the people, according 
to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goat?', 
with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled 
both the book, and all the people, saying. This is the 
blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto 
you." A record of the incident here referred toby 
Paul is found in Ex. 24:6-8. The blood of animals 
which Moses sprinkled upon the people, he also 
sprinkled upon the book of the covenant; hence this 
blood was properly called the blood of that covenant. 
The blood of the Xew Testament Paul shows to be the 
blood of Christ, in Heb. 12:23, 24. Speaking there of 
our coming unto mount Sion, he says we are come also 
^'to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better 
things than that of Abel," which shows that this blood 
of sprinkling is the blood of the new covenant that 
was given at mount Sion. It is the blood of Christ 
that h^ here refers to, which of a truth speaketh more 



THE TWO COVENANTS. 19 

than Abel's blood. It speaketh not only our sins for- 
given (Kev. 1 :5), but we are also sanctified by the blood 
of Christ. Heb. 13:12. 

It remaineth yet for us to show in this chapter the 
mediators of each of the two covenants. Speaking of 
the Old Testament in Gal. 3 :19, which he there denom- 
inates the law, Paul tells us, '^It was ordained by 
angels, in the hand of a mediator." A mediator is one 
who stands between two parties when a covenant is 
made. In Deut. 5:5 we find Moses professes himself 
to have occupied that position between God and the 
Israelites at the time the Sinai tic covenant was 
given. His words are: ''I stood between the Lord and 
you at that time." The mediator of the new covenant 
is mentioned in 1 Tim. 2:5 — "For there is one God, 
and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus 
Christ. ' ' Law-teachers frequently use this text to pro e 
that Christ was also the mediator at the giving of the 
first covenant, because it says there is one mediator 
between God and man: but this is no fair argument; 
because the first covenant being now abolished, its 
mediator ceases to stand any longer between God and 
man, and the mediator of the new covenant is our only 
mediator. Hence the apostle says, "There is one 
mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ. *' 

In Heb. 12:24 it is plainly stated that Jesus is the 
mediator of the new covenant. Verse 25 speaks of the 
mediators of both covenants as follows: "See that ye 
refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not 



20 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall 
not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh 
from heaven." He who spoke on earth was Moses, the 
mediator of the old covenant. He was said to have 
spoken on earth because he was a mere man. But he 
who speaketh from heaven is the Lord Jesus Christ, 
the mediator of the Xew Testament. He is said to 
speak from heaven because he is divine and proceeded 
from heaven. Surely these arguments are sufficient to 
set forth to the mind of the reader the fact that there 
have been two distinct covenants made. I shall pro- 
ceed in the following chapters to show the embodiment 
of each. 



THE OLD COVENANT. 



We have seen that God has made two cove- 
nants, also where each was revealed, the blood by 
which each was sanctified, and the mediators of each; 
now we shall proceed to give a full description of what 
is contained in the old covenant. 

Let us first see the date of the giving of the old cov- 
enant. In Heb. 8:9 it is said to have been made with 
the fathers in the day that God took them by the hand 
to lead them out of the land of Egypt. According to 
this, the old covenant was made at the time the Jewish 
nation was led out of Egyptian bondage, through the 
Avilderness, and into the promised land. In Gal. 3:17 



Me old covenant. 21 

Paul says the law was given 430 years after God deliv- 
ered his promises to Abraham. That which he here 
calls the law is the same as the old covenant, and 430 
years from the time God delivered his promises to 
Abraham would reach to the Exodus from Egypt. 
These are sufficient proofs to show us at what date the 
old covenant was made. 

But just what is included in the old covenant is the 
chief harden of this chapter. "And Moses called all 
Israel, and said unto them. Hear, Israel, the statutes 
and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that 
ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The Lord 
our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The 
Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but 
with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. 
The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out 
of the midst of the fire (I stood between the Lord and 
you at that time, to show you the word of the Lord ; 
for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up 
into the monnt), saying.-' — Deut. 5:1-5. Here Moses 
is calling the attention of the Jewish people to the 
covenant that God had made with them in Horeb, He 
proceeds in verses (>-21 to quote the ten commandments. 
In verse 22 he says the Lord "added no more," which 
shows that the covenant here spoken of includes the 
ten commandments only. 

Seventh-day Adventists try to dodge the fact so 
plainly taught here, that the ten commandments con- 
stitute the covenant God made on mount Sinai; be- 



22 Till-: BETTER TESTAMENT. 

cause the Xew Testament shows the old covenant to 
have been abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ. They 
say the ten commandments are eternal, and therefore 
can not be the covenant that God made on mount 
Sinai. The reader will please observe the following 
ideas clearly set foith in the chapter before us. First, 
God made a covenant in Horeb. Second, he spoke no 
more than the ten commandments; therefore, the ten 
commandments must be the covenant. Third, he made 
this covenant in Horeb; therefore, it never could have 
existed before ; for if it ever existed before, it could 
not have been made in Horeb. When God makes any- 
thing, he brings it into existence; so he actually brought 
that covenant into existence in mount Horeb. 

For the sake of those who may have imbibed some 
of the false doctrines of law-teachers, I shall quote a 
number of texts to prove that the ten commandments 
constitute the old covenant. We first turn to Ex. 
34:28 — "And he was there Avith the Lord forty days 
and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink 
water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the 
covenant, the ten commandments." It seems that 
sensible men would scarcely attempt to contradict such 
a plain declaration of inspiration. 

W^e will proceed with another text. ''And he de- 
clared unto you his covenant, which he commanded 
you to perform, even ten commandments; and he 
wrote them upon two tables of stone." — Deut. 4:13. 
This text, like the previous one, is so very plain that it 



teE OLD COVENANT. 23 

seems almost unnecessary to produce furtfier proof that 
the ten commandments constitute the covenant. Nev- 
ertheless, we will proceed further, that the reader may 
see that throughout the Old Testament the decalogue 
is denominated the covenant. 

In Deut. 4:23 we read: "Take heed unto yourselves, 
lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God, 
which he made with you, and make you a graven image, 
or the likeness of anything, which the Lord thy God 
hath forbidden thee." The making of images is for- 
bidden in the second commandm^ent. If, therefore, 
the making of images would be a breaking of the cove- 
nant, the decalogue is the covenant. 

"Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the 
Lord done thus unto this land? What meaneth 
the heat of this great anger? Then men shall say. 
Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord 
God of their fathers, which he made with them when 
he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt";^ for 
they went and served other gods, and worshiped them, 
gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given 
unto them." — Deut. 29:24-20. In this text disobedi- 
ence unto the first of the ten commandments is called 
a breaking of the covenant, which is another proof 
that the decalogue is the covenant. 

"And the Lord said unto Closes, Behold, thou shalt 
sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, 
and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the 
land, whither they go to be among them, and will for- 



24 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

sake me, andFbreak my covenant which I made with 
them." — Deut. 31:16. Here again the breaking of 
the first commandment is styled a breaking of the cove- 
nant. The same thing is also taught in Jiidg. 2:10, 
20 and Josh. 23:1G. 

King Solomon is said to have broken the Lord's 
covenant (1 Kings 11:9-11) when he had broken the 
first of the ten commandments by running after 
strange gods. 

Achan's crime is styled a breaking of the covenant 
(Josh. 7:10-12, 21), in that he had coveted the gold 
and silver, and the Babylonish garment (that is, broken 
the tenth commandment), and had also stolen these 
articles, by which he had broken the eighth command 
ment in the decalogue. This we must also add to our 
list of proofs that the decalogue is the covenant. 

Israel, by worshiping Baal, breaking the first com- 
mandment, and murdering God's prophets, breaking 
the sixth commandment, is said to have broken God's 
covenant. 1 Kings 19:9, 10. 

The breaking of the second commandment is also 
styled a breaking of the covenant. 8ee 2 Kings 
17:15, 16, 35. 

Jeremiah calls a breaking of the first commandment, 
a breaking of the Lord's covenant. Jer. 11:10; 22:9. 

These are surely sufficient proofs to convince any 
teachable reader that the ten commandments constitute 
the old covenant. The term "covenant," at a later 
period than the giving of the ten commandments. 



THE OLD COVENANT. 25 

■m 
became applicable to more than the decalogue. For 

instance, in Ileb. 9:18-20 Paul says concerning the 
dedication of the first covenant: ^'Whereupon neither 
the first testament was dedicated without blood. For 
when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people 
according to the law, he took the blood of calves and 
of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and 
sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying. 
This is the blood of the testament which God hath 
enjoined unto you." From this text the old covenant 
seems to have been a book. We have an account of 
the writing of this book of the covenant and its dedi- 
cation in Ex. 24:3-8, which we might here insert. 
"And Moses came and told the people all the words 
of the Lord, and all the judgments; and all the people 
answered with one voice, and said. All the words which 
the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all 
the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morn- 
ing; and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve 
pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And 
he sent young men of the children of Israel, which 
offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings 
of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the 
blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he 
sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the 
covenant, and read in the audience of the people; and 
they said, iVll that the Lord hath said will we do, and 
be obedient. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled 
it on the people, and said, l^iOiold the blood of the 



26 THE BETTER TESTAMEX'f. 

covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concern- 
ing all these words." 

The book of the covenant which Moses wrote, con- 
tained all the words of the Lord; that is, all the words 
that the Lord had spoken on mount Sinai. This in- 
cluded the ten commandments spoken by God in the 
ears of all the people, in the 20lh chapter of Exodus, 
and the judgments, feasts, etc., recorded in the 21st, 
22d, and 23d chapters. We have sometimes heard 
law-teachers affirm that the ten commandments were 
not written in the book of the covenant. If this were 
true, a parenthesis would be required as follows: ''And 
Moses wrote all the words of the Lord (but the ten 
commandments)." Xo such })arenthesis occurs in the 
Bible; therefore the ten commandments, being of the 
words of the Lord spoken on Sinai, were written in the 
book of the covenant. This book wuuld not be styled 
the book of the covenant had it not contained the ten 
commandments, which we have already shown to be 
the embodiment of the first covenant. 

At a later period Moses wrote the Pentateuch, in 
which he copied this book of the covenant, which now 
forms chapters 20-23 of Exodus. And as the decalogue 
is the covenant proper, it having been recorded in the 
Pentateuch, caused it (the Pentateuch) afterwards to be- 
come known as the old covenant, or the Old Testament. 

Ezekiel called the bringing of strangers uncircum- 
cised in heart and flesh into the Lord's sanctuary a 
breaking of the covenant. See Ezek. 44:7. This was 



THE OLD CdVEVANT. 27 

forbidden in Lev. 22:25. We regard this as a clear 
proof that Ezekiel understood that ic was proper to 
call th entire writings of Moses "the covenant." 

Malachi styled the breaking of the laws of Moses 
respecting matrimony, a breaking of the covenant. 
Mai. 2:9. The laws referred to regarding matrimony 
are recorded in Deut 7:1-3. This shows that Malachi 
also denominated the entire Pentateuch the covenant. 

In Heb. 9:1 the apostle Paal says, "Then verily the 
first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, 
and a worldly sanctuary." x\ccording to this all the 
ceremonies of the tabernacle with its services pertained 
to the old covenant. From this we are to conclude 
that Paul, like the prophets of the Old Testament, 
applied the term "covenant" to the entire Pentateuch. 

In 2 Cor. 3:14, 15 the reading of the Old Testament 
is styled by a Paul reading of Moses. This clearly 
proves fhat the apostle commonly styled the P» nta- 
teuch, the old covenant. Xo broader application of 
the term "old covenant" is found in the scriptures. 



THE XEW COVEXAXT. 



Jeremiah is the first among the inspired writers to 
mention the nev,' covenant. Six hundred years before 
the birth of our Savior, he prophesied, snying, "Behold, 
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house 



28 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made 
with their fathers in the day that I took them hy the 
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which 
my covenant they brake, although I was an husband 
unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the cove- 
nant that I will make with the house of Israel. After 
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law into their 
iuAvard parts, and write them in their hearts; and will 
be their God, and they shall be my people. And they 
shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every 
man his brother, saying. Know the Lord: for they shaU 
all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest 
of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniqui- 
ty, and I will remember their sin no more." — Jer. 31: 
31-34. This prophecy is quoted by Paul in Heb. 8:8-12 
and 10:16-17, where he shows very clearly that it relates 
to the testament of which Jesus is the mediator. 
Heb. 8:6. 

Unlike the old covenant which was written upon 
stone, the new covenant was to be written in the inward 
parts ; in the hearts and minds of the people. This 
refers to the experimental salvation to be wrought in 
the heart by the Spirit of God under the new covenant. 
But just what law is thus written in the heart is the 
real idea that I desire to establish in this chapter. 
It is affirmed by the law-teachers that the ten-com- 
mandment code is the Jaw God promised through Jere- 
miah to write in the hearts of his people for the new 
covenant; but this is evidently a mistake, from the 



THE NEW cove:n^ant. 29 

fact that the law to be written in our hearts in the 
Christian dispensation was to be a better covenant than 
that given at mount Sinai (Heb. 8:6), which covenant 
we have in a previous chapter shown to be constituted 
by the ten commandments. 

But can it be possible that there is a more perfect 
standard taught in the Jfew Testament than that which 
was held up in the decalogue? We answer, Yes. 
Jesus, in his sermon on the mount, seems to have 
taken special pains to show that his law raised the 
standard of righteousness higher than the decalogue. 
We will notice some of his sayings. "Ye have heard 
that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not 
kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the 
judgment: but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry 
with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of 
the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, 
Eaca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever 
shall say. Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." — 
Matt. 5:21, 22. ''Thou shalt not kill" is the sixth 
commandment in the decalogue, and Jesus here raises 
a standard that is higher than* that lifted up in it. He 
makes anger without a cause as great a crime as was 
actual murder under the decalogue. The decalogue 
did not condemn a man until he had actually shed 
blood, but Jesus' law, according to his teaching here, 
condemns a man as an offender if he allows even hatred 
to form in his heart against his fellow man. 

The apostle John teaches the same thing in 1 Jno. 



30 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

3:15. His words are: "Whosoever hateth his brother 
is a murderer." 

Again, Jesus says, "Ye have heard that it was said by 
them of old time. Thou shalt not commit adultery: 
but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a 
woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with 
her already in his heart." — Matt. 5:27, 28. He here 
quotes the seventh commandment in the decalogue, 
which he also shows to be imperfect, and raises a higher 
standard than that contained in it. Xot only does 
the Kew Testament, like the decalogue, condemn and 
cut off a man for the actual deed of adultery, but it 
condemns him as a sinner when even the desire is 
allowed to find its way into the heart. Can you not, 
dear reader, see very clearly that the law of the Xew 
Testament is a higher standard than the decalogue? 

To more perfectly establish this thought in your 
mind, I will call your attention to a higher stan- 
dard in the Xew Testament than another command- 
ment in the decalogue. The third commandment for- 
bade profane swearing by taking the name of God in 
vain^ but the Xew Testament says, "Swear not at all," 
which cuts off all profane swearing. Even the speak- 
ing of a single idle word is cut off in the Xew Testa- 
ment. Matt. 12:30. 

It is surely unnecessary to proceed any further to 
show that the Xew Testami iit throughout lifts up a 
higher standard than was lit'ted up in the decalogue. 
AVe must therefore conclude that the ten-command- 



THE NEW COVENANT. 31 

ment code was not a perfect code, and acknowledge 
the apostle right in his declaration that the New Testa- 
ment is a better covenant than the old. 

It would be well also to notice that the new covenant 
according to Jeremiah's prophecy was to be ''not 
according to the covenant that God made with the 
Israelites in the day that he took them by the hand to 
bring them out of the land of Egypt." From this we 
see that the new covenant is to be different from the 
decalogue, or old covenant. In what sense was it to be 
different? In the sense that it was to be more complete 
than the decalogue. 

To understand just what law is written within us 
under the new covenant, we must consider a few texts 
of scripture which describe this inward writing. 
Ezekiel predicted it in language somewhat different 
from Jeremiah. ''And I will give them one heart, and 
I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the 
stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a 
heart of flesh: that they may walk in my statutes, and 
keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be 
my people, and I will be their God." — Ezek. 11:19,, 
20. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new 
spirit will I pub within you: and I will take away the 
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an 
heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, 
and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep 
my judgments, and do them." — Ezek. 36:26, 2v. 
According to these prophecies of Ezekiel the writing 



32 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

God was to do in oar inward parts, under the new cov- 
enant, is an entire change in our nature, that we shonkl 
be caused thereby to walk in God's statutes, and his 
judgments, and do them. 

Not only are we, with God's law written in our 
hearts, to live to the low standard lifted up in the deca- 
logue, but we are to have God's original law of right- 
eousness so perfectly restored in our natures that we 
will be enabled to practice every principle of righteous- 
ness. This we shall understand better after we have 
read a few texts from the Xew Testament. 

"For it is God which worketh in you, both to will 
and to do of his good pleasure." — Phil. 2:13. Accord- 
ins: to this text the writing of God's law in our } 
by his Spirit, under the new covenant, is so per' 
change in our nature that we are no longer unwillinsr 
but actually inclined to do God's pleasure in everythiv 

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from 
dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the shet- * 
through the blood of the everlasting covenant, ma^ 
you perfect in every good work to do his will, workin 
in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, throu^ 
Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ca . 
Amen."— Heb. 13:20, 21. 

This text shows very clearly the embodiment of Uic 
law written in our hearts in the New Testament. I 
is the making perfect of our nature to do God's wiii 
and to perform that which is well-pleasing in his sight 
in everything. 



THE KEW COVENANT. 33 

If it were the decalogue that God writes in our 
hearts in the New Testament dispensation, the inward 
writing would not be the perfecting of our nature to 
do God's perfect law. The decalogue within us would 
enable us to refrain from shedding blood, but not from 
hating our brother. It would enable us to refrain from 
committing adultery, but not from the lust of the heart. 
It would enable us to refrain from worshiping images, 
but would not cause us to worship the true God. It 
would enable us to abstain from swearing profanely by 
taking the name of God in vain, but would not enable 
us to ''swear not at all." There are many evil things 
ihat axo not forbidden in the decalogue ; hence the fool- 
?ft^J:'3jS^ of the teaching that the decalogue is the em- 

^^lent of the Xew Testament. 
. X^he law of the New Testament is a perfect duplicate 

^ 4hose principles of righteousness that God wrote in 

* Ti ~ 

I heart of man in his creation. Sin had eifaced these 

^v^ft entirely from the human heart, but in the sav- 

^y^ of our souls under the New Testament, these laws 

ij^L righteousness are perfectly restored in our hearts. 

^j^is is the law of God that Jeremiah predicted should 

^^•Q,^written in our inward parts. - The possession of 

Ood's nature, within us, so to speak, acquaints us with 

pjoxl to such a degree as man could not otherwise be 

jjquainted with him since the fall. Hence the predic- 

fron by Jeremiah that all should know the Lord who 

should receive this writing within them, from the least 

to the greatest. 

3 



34 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

The perfect principles of righteousness which consti- 
tute the New Testament, are on record in the last 
twenty-seven books of the Bible. This is why they 
are called the New Testament. 



THE FIEST COVENANT DONE AWAY. 



"He taketh away the first, that he may establish the 
second," said Paul, when speaking of the mission of 
Christ to this world. Heb. 10:9. His meaning is that 
he taketh away the first covenant, that he may estab- 
lish the second. According to this declaration it was 
impossible that two covenants could stand at once, 
and the taking away of the first was simply a making 
room for the second. The same thought is conveyed 
in Heb. 8:13, where Paul is commenting upon the 
prophecy quoted from Jeremiah. In verse 13 he says, 
"In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the 
first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is 
ready to vanish away." 

It seems ridiculous to some people to teach that the 
ten commandments are done away; but what other 
idea are we to gather from these texts? If the first 
covenant was the decalogue (which fact we have so 
clearly proved before), and tffe first covenant was taken 
away, then the ten commandments are taken away. 
Of course, after the giving of the decalogue the term 
"covenant" was enlarged to include the entire Penta- 



THE FIRST COVENANT DONE AWAY. 35 

teuch, but this does not weaken the argument; for if 
the Pentateuch is taken away, the ten commandments 
are taken away with it, because they are contained 
in it. 

''And such trust have we through Christ to God- 
ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think 
anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 
who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testa- 
ment; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter 
killeth, btit the spirit giveth life. But if the ministra- 
tion of death, written and engraven in stones, was glo- 
rious, so that the children of Israel could not stead- 
fastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his 
countenance, which glory was to be done away, how 
shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glori- 
ous? For if the ministration of condemnation be 
glory, much more doth the ministration of righteous- 
ness exceed in glory. For even that which was made 
glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the 
glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away 
was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glori- 
ous. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use 
great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which j)ut 
a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could 
not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abol- 
ished: but their minds were blinded; for until this 
day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the read- 
ing of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in 
Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, 



36 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

the veil is upon their heart. K'evertheless when it 
shall tarn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away." 
—2 Cor. 3:4-16. 

In the foregoing the two covenants are contrasted 
as follows: 



Old Covenant. 

^^Letter." 

* 'Letter killeth." 

* 'Ministration of death, writ- 
ten and engraven in stones, . . . 
glorious." 

"That which was maxie glo- 
rious." 

"That which was done away 
was glorious." 

"That which is abolished." 



New Covenant. 
"Spirit." 
"Spirit giveth life.'' 
"Ministration of the spirit, 
. . . rather glorious. " 

"The glory that excelleth.*' 

"That which remaineth is 

glorious." 



Surely the word of God could not more plainly set 
forth the abolition of the first covenant than in this 
text. Paul plainly calls the Old Testament ''that 
which is abolished," "that which is done away," etc. 

Law-teachers oftentimes affirm that the apostle is 
not speaking here of the abolition of the decalogue, 
but I affirm that he is speaking of it and nothing 
else ; because, as the reader will observe, he is speak- 
ing of that which was written and engraven in stones. 
What was ever written and engraven in stones but the 
ten commandments? In Ex. 32:15, 16 we read con- 
cerning the writing that was contained in the two 
tables of testimony as follows: ''And Moses turned, 
and went down from the mount, and the two tables of 
the testimony were in his hand: the tables were writ- 
ten on both their sides; on the one side and on the 



THE FIKST COVENANT DONE AWAY. 37 

other were they written. And the tables were the 
work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, 
graven upon the tables." In this text we see the ten 
commandments were graven upon the tables of stones, 
and this is the only instance of engraving of law upon 
stones found in the whole Bible. Therefore, the law 
written and engraven upon stones, which Paul in the 
t 'xt quoted shows to have been abolished, must be the 
ten commandments. 

There are other texts of scripture showing the aboli- 
tion of the old covenant which speak more directly of 
the abolition of the ceremonies and ordinances of the 
old covenant, but it is unnecessary to mention them 
here. If the covenant itself is abolished, all the minor 

principles of the covenant must be abolished with it. 

% 



REASONS AVHY THE OLD COVENANT COULD 
NOT EEMAIN IN FORCE IN THE ^ 
NEW DISPENSATION. 



It is the clamor of law-teachers that the decalogue has 
been made the embodiment of the new covenant. This 
can not be true, for several reasons. First, because, as I 
have shown, the decalogue is a covenant within itself, 
distiuct from the new covenant, and two covenants 
can not be in force in the same dispensation. This is 
why it is written in Heb. 10:9 that Cnrist took away the 
"first [covenant] that he might establish the second." 



38 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

Another reason why the old covenant can not con- 
tinue in force in the new dispensation is, that it was 
bat a temporary institution designed only for a means 
of governing the people till the coming of the Savior. 
In Gal. 3:19 we read: "Wherefore then serveth the 
law? It was added because of transgressions, till the 
seed should come to whom the promise was made; and 
it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." 
The word "law" in this text has special reference to 
the decalogue; because it is here stated that the law 
was ordained by angels, in the hand of a mediator. 
To confirm this assertion we have but to turn to Moses' 
writings and see what law was ordained in the hand of 
Moses, the mediator. "And Moses turned, and went 
down from the mount, and the two tables of the testi- 
mony were in his hand: the tables were written on 
both their sides; on the one side and on the other 
were they written. And the tables were the work of 
God^nd the writing was the writing of God, graven 
upon the tables."— Ex. 32:15, 16. "So I turned, and 
came down from the mount, and the mount burned 
with fire : and the two tables of the covenant were in 
my two hands." — Deut. 9:15. According to these 
texts it was two tables on which the ten command- 
ments were written that was ordained in the hands of 
the mediator of the old covenant. Therefore the 
decalogue is the law referred to in Gal. 3:19, that was 
added until the seed should come. Can anything be 
more clearly taught than the fact set forth in the scrip- 



OLD COVEI^ANT COULD NOT REMAIN IN FORCE. 39 

tures before us, that the decalogue was but a temporary 
institution, to remain in force only until the promised 
seed should come? 

But who is the promised seed referred to? This is 
explained in Gal. 3:16 — "Xow to Abraham and his 
seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to 
seeds, as of many: but as of one, and to thy seed, 
which is Christ." This is very plain, the decalogue 
was to continue in force until Christ came. 

Jesus also taught that the old covenant was but a 
temporary institution. ''Think not that I am come to 
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to 
destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you. Till 
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no 
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." — Matt. 
5 :17, 18. In this text some seem to see a proof that 
the law is not abolished, but to our mind it is a clear 
proof that it is abolished. True, he said, "I am not 
come to destroy" the law, but he needed not to turn 
his hand to destroy the law, since it was but a tempo- 
rary system to pass out of force with his coming. He 
said the law was to continue until fulfilled, and that he 
' came to fulfill it. Do not these declarations taken to- 
gether prove the very doctrine taught by Paul in Gala- 
tians, that the law should last only until the coming of 
Christ? 

^Ye might best convey our understanding of the 
text before us with an illustrauon. SClppose Congress 
should enact a law that no man should shoot, kill, or 



40 THE BETTER TESTAMEiq"*. 

pursue with intent to kill any wild game for five years, 
and said law should come into force Dec. 1, 1899. 
Dec. 1, 1904 that law would die of itself and sportsmen 
would not wait for Congress to pass an act to abolish 
it; because the very construction of the act would 
show that it was to continue in force no later than 
Dec. 1, 1904. This beautifully illustrates the abolition 
of the first covenant. It was enacted as a restraint 
upon sin until Christ should come to destroy it out of 
the heart; and Christ needed not to do anything to 
destroy or abolish that system; his coming itself 
did that. 

Verse 19 is also used by law-teachers against the idea 
of the law being abolished by Christ; therefore, we 
had better consider it. ''Whosoever therefore shall 
break one of these least commandments, and shall 
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the king- 
dom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach 
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of 
heaven." "These least commandments," the law- 
teachers say refers to the ten commandments. But 
how contrary to the tenor of their teaching, which 
exalts the ten commandments above all the command- 
ments of Moses. But Jesus is not speaking here of the 
ten commandments exclusively. He came to fulfill 
the law of which he speaks; therefore it contained 
some prophecies or types, otherwise he could not have 
fulfilled it. The decalogue contained no such proph- 
ecies, and apart from the fourth commandment it con- 



OLD COVENANT COULD NOT REMAIN TN FORCE. 41 

tained no types. At this point the law-teacher will 
take the turn that ^'fulfill" here means to obey. But 
this can not be true; because Jesus taught that the 
law should pass away when fulfilled. Therefore the 
fulfillment in question must be viewed in the light of 
antityping, or bringing to pass. A mere command- 
ment can not be thus fulfilled. Therefore Christ is 
speaking of a law that contained types and prophecies 
or types or prophecies as well as commandments. 
Who is so dull of understanding as to be unable to see 
that he is speaking of the entire Mosaic system? The 
expression ''these least commandments" we are to 
apply not to the ten only but to all the commandments 
of Moses' law. Therefore Christ is enjoining obedi- 
ence to all the law of Moses, as he did in Matt. 23 :l-3. 
The law was not fulfilled until the death of Christ, and 
was, therefore, in force during his lifetime: hence it 
was his duty to teach and practice the law. This is 
the reason why such sentiments as the foregoing are to 
be found in his sermons. I believe I have now fully 
overthrown the lawist's claim that Jesus carried the 
old covenant into the new-covenant dispensation. 

The prophets of the old dispensation also knew that 
the old covenant was only a temporary system, because 
they prophesied of a new covenant. Jeremiah verj 
clearly predicted a new covenant in Jer. 31:31-33. 
Isaiah predicted that a new law should be given at 
mount Zion. Isa. 2:3. Micah predicted the same 
thing. Micah. 4:2. All the prophets have been the 



42 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

aiithe^rs of similar declarations, and if they knew that 
a new law was to be given at some future time, they 
certainly knew that the law by which they were gov- 
erned was to fall into disuse when that new law should 
be given. 

The very mediator of the old covenant knew that his 
system was but temporary. He prophesied that a new 
lawgiver should be laised up who should give a new 
law. The following are his words: "The Lord thy 
God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst 
of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye 
shall harken. According to all that thou desiredst of 
the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, 
saying. Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord 
my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, 
that I die not. And the Lord said unto me. They 
have well spol^en that which they have spoken. I will 
raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, 
like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; 
and he shall speak unto them all that I shall commai.d 
him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall 
not harken unto my words which he shall speak in 
my name, I will require it of him." — Deut. 18:15 19. 
If Moses knew so perfectly that a new lawgiver should 
arise, could he also have failed to see that his svstem 
would cease to be a standard of government to the 
people when that new lawgiver should arise? Surely 
not. With these scriptural thoughts before us, must 
we not decide that to endeavor to bring the old cove- 



OLD COVENANT COULD NOT BEMAIN IN FORCE. 43 

nant this side of Christ is the height of foolishness? 

Another reason why the old covenant had to be abol- 
ished is given in Heb. 7:12 — "For the priesthood being 
changed, there is n?ade of necessity a change also of 
the law." The old covenant was not introduced under 
the right priesthood to continue in the new dispensa- 
tion. The priesthood of the new testament is of the 
tribe of Judah, while the priesthood of the old covenant 
was of the tribe of Levi. This fact alone necessitated a 
change of the law. What change does it suggest? Sim- 
ply the change that is left on record in Heb. 10: 9, the 
taking away of the first and the establishment of the 
second. 

Another fact that might be offered as an apology for 
the abolition of the old covenant is the solemn truth 
that it was designed only for an age in which sin 
abounded. In Rom. 5:20, 21 we read: ''Moreover the 
law entered, that the offense might abound. But where 
sin abounded, grace did much more abound : that as sin 
hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign 
through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
Christ." In this text we see the thought clearly set 
forth that sin reigned and abounded under the law of 
Moses right up to the coming of our Savior. It was 
not intended that the law should abolish sin, but that 
it should restrain men in their wickedness, and hold 
them within certain bounds. The law nowhere de- 
manded the destruction of sin; hence such a system 
could not serve as a standard of government in an age 



44 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

in which sin was to be completely rooted out of the 
hearts of men. 

It is further taught in the word of God that the old 
system was too weak to destroy sin; ''for there is 
verily a disannulling of the commandment going 
before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." 
— Ileb. 7:18. The law was too weak with its inferior 
sacrifices to destroy sin; hence the impossibility of 
saving a people from all sin while governed by it. 
This is another reason why the old covenant could not 
continue in force in the victorious New Testament 
dispensation. 

There is yet another reason why the old covenant 
could not govern New Testament people. It was a 
covenant of but one nation. Concerning the Gentile 
nations of the old dispensation, Paul says, "Wherefore 
remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the 
flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which 
is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by 
hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, 
being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
strangers from the covenants of promise, having no 
hope, and without God in the world: but now in 
Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made 
nigh by the blood of Christ."— Eph. 2:11-13. Here it 
is very plainly stated that under the old covenant the 
Gentile nations had no hope, and Avere without God in 
the world. Only the Jews and their proselytes had 
hope in Moses' law. Can there be a clearer proof 



OLD COVENA]SrT COULD NOT REMAIJ^ IN FOKCE. 45 

that the old covenant was a covenant of the Jewish 
nation only? The obligations of the first covenant 
prove the same thing. In Ex. 20:10 it is plainly stated 
that the decalogue and more especially the fourth 
commandment, was only enjoined upon the Jew and 
his children and the stranger within his gates. 

The new covenant reaches to all nations. Isaiah 
predicted concerning it, ''And the Gentiles shall see 
thy righteousness, ani all kings thy glory." — Isa. 62:2. 
According to this prophecy the new covenant is 
to be enjoined upon the Gentiles as well as the Jews. 
Jesus taught the same thing in Jno. 10:16 — "Other 
sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I 
must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there 
shall be one fold, and one shepherd." The fold of 
which Jesus speaks signifies the Jewish nation who 
only were included in the fold of the Lord in Old Tes- 
tament times. The "other sheep" that he was going 
to bring into his folii under the new covenant are the 
Genlile nations. This is a positive proof that the new 
covenant is to extend its arms of mercy to all nations, 
and since the old covenant enjoined only one nation, 
could it possibly continue in force with a covenant 
that enjoins all nations? The fact s it would hinder 
the very salvation of the new dispensation. This is 
why Paul, speaking of the abolition of the Mosaic 
system in Col. 2:14, says Christ "took it out of the 
way, nailing it to his cross." It was actually in 
Christ's way. It hindered the propagation of his new 



46 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

covenant among all nations, and until the old covenant 
had been abolished by the death of Christ, the gospel 
could not have been preached outside the Jewish 
nation. This thought is strikingly verified by the fact 
that neither Christ nor his disciples during his lifetime 
ever preached outside the realms of the Jews. When 
Christ commissioned the twelve to preach his gospel, 
before his death, he forbade them to preach to the 
Gentiles. Matt. 10:5, 6. It was nol until after the 
death of Christ had abolished the narrow-contracted 
Mosaic system that he gave Ihem the unbounded com- 
mission "Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature." — Mark 16:15, 16; Matt. 
28:19,20. 



THE TWO LAWS. 



The word of God speaks of two general law systems, 
which it distinguishes as the "law of Moses" (Acts 
13:39), and the "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). Much of 
the truth contained in the word of God on this subject 
has been set forth in the chapter entitled "The Two 
Covenants," but there are some thoughts that do not 
properly belong to the subject of the covenants, which, 
we wish to introduce here. 

The term "law of Moses" is used throughout the 
Bible to designate the Pentateuch. The term "law" 
in the Old Testament generally signifies the Pentateuch 



THE TWO LAWS. 47 

only, but in the New Testament it has a much broader 
signification. In 1 Cor. 14:21 we read: "In the law it 
is written, With men of other tongues and other lips 
will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will 
they not hear me, saith the Lord." This quotation is 
from Isa. 28:11; hence the book of Isaiah is also 
denominated ''the law" in the New Testament. We 
read in Jno. 12:34: "The people answered him, AVe 
have heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever: 
and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? 
who is this Son of man?" The prophecy concerning 
Christ which the Jews here declared they had read 
in their law is found in Ps. 89:36, 37; Ezek. 37:25; 
Dan. 2:44; and Mic. 4:7. Thus you see the whole 
Old Testament — Prophets, Psalms, Pentateuch, and all 
— is called "the law" in Uie New Testament. 

The Psalms and the Prophets, however, are not 
exclusively law. They clamor for obedience to the law 
of Moses (which was indeed their duty, since they lived 
in the law age), but at the same time they foretell 
much of the New Testament. They, therefore, occupy 
a kind of middle position between the law and the 
gospel, and their writings are law and gospel com- 
mingled. Whatever is enjoined in the Prophets that 
was enjoined in the Pentateuch, and is not repeated 
in the New Testament, we are not as Christians held to 
obey. But whatever is enjoined in the Prophets, 
whether it was or was not formerly taught by Moses, 
if it is repeated in the New Testament, we are under 



48 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

obligations to obey: not because it was or was not con- 
tained in the law, but because it is contained in the 
Xew Testament. 

The law of Christ is identical in every respect with 
the new coN^enant, which I have explained befort. 
It includes all the natural principles of righteousness 
of which God is the originator, which, as I have 
before shown, are all recorded in the twenty-seven 
books which we call the New Testament. This *4aw 
of Christ" was revealed to the world by our Savior 
himself during his incarnation. 

Law- teachers, in their zeal to defend the law of 
Moses, deny Christ the office of a lawgiver during his 
incarnation. They quote such texts as 1 Cor. 10:1-4, 
which speaks of Christ as having been with the Old 
Testament people, upon which they base the theory 
that Christ was the lawgiver at the time the Old Tes- 
tament system was revealed; but this is perfectly 
absurd. I do not deny that Christ has been with 
the people of God in some sense from the very creation 
of the world; but that he ever acted as a lawgiver 
before his birth into this world, I do deny. No writer 
of the Bible, either in the Old or the New Testament, 
ever spoke of Christ as the giver of the old law. Moses is 
always spoken of as the mediator of the Old Testament. 
Jesus himself says, ''Dii! not Moses give you the law?'' 
— Jno. 7:19. The term "law of Christ" was never 
used until after the incarnation of Christ. It is a 
shame that it becomes our duty in this enlightened 



THE TWO LAWS. 49 

iigo to defend this truth so emphatically taught in 
both the Old and the New Testament. 

Moses and all the prophets dwell largely upon the 
fact that the Messiah who was to come should be the 
author of a new law, and Christ himself professes to 
have come into the world as a lawgiver. A few of his 
^sayings will set this matter straight in our minds. 
* 'Jesus answered them, and said. My doctrine is not 
mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his 
will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
God, or whether I speak of myself." — Jno. 7:16, 17. 
"Then said Jesus unto them. When ye have lifted up 
the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and 
that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has 
taught me, I speak these things." — Jno. 8:28. "He 
that rejecteth me, and receive th not my words, hath 
one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, 
the same shall judge him ill the last day. For I 
have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent 
me, he gave me a commandment, what 1 should say, 
2ind what I should speak. And I know that this com- 
mandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak there- 
fore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." — 
Jno. 12:48-50. "He that loveth me not keepeth not 
my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, 
ibut the Father's which sent me." — Jno. 14:24. "For 
1 have given unto them the words which thou gavest 
me; and they have received them, and have known 
;gurely that I caxae out from thee, and they have believed 



50 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

that thou didst send me." — Jno. 1?:8. "1 have given 
them thy word; and the world hath hated them, be- 
c:iuse they are not of the world, even as I am not of 
the world." — Ver. 14. These texts surely overthrow 
the idea that Christ was not a lawgiver during his 
incarnation. 

Sometimes law-teachers in their bewilderment actu- 
ally defy the world to produce a single new law in the 
New Testament. Oh, shame on their impudence! 
There are, no doubt, more than a hundred laws in the 
New Testament that Avere never known by those who 
lived under the Sinai tic code. For the benefit of the 
poor, blind law-teachers, I will mention a few of 
them. The commands to be baptized, to love our 
enemies, to be born again, to greet with the holy kiss, 
to observe the communion supper, to wash one 
another's feet, and among many others, the sublime 
commandment, "Love obe another as I have loved 
you," were not knoAvn in the Old Testament times. 
Oh, how dare these revilers of God's truth affirm that 
Jesus Christ never introduced a new law during his 
incarnation? 

The two laws are most beautifully set forth in 
Connybeare and Howson's translation of 1 Cor. 9:20, 
21 — ''To the Jews I became as a Jew, that 1 might 
gain the Jews: to those under the law as though I were 
under the law, that I might gain those under the law; 
with those who were free from the law, I lived as one 
who is free from the law (not that I was without law 



THE LAW OF WORKS AND TIIK L \ W OF FAITH, ol 

before God, but under the law of Christ), that I might 
gain those who were free from the law." This text is 
similarly translated in the following translations: 
Bible Union, H. T. Anderson, Emphatic Diaglott, 
Xew Version, Eotherham, and A. Layman. The 
Douay Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate, ren- 
ders it as follow^s: "To them that are under the law, 
as if I were under the law (whereas myself was not 
under the law), that I might gain them that were 
under the law; to them that were without the law, as 
if I were without the law (whereas I was not without 
the law of God, but under the law of Christ)." We 
can not fail to see from this text that Paul had a per- 
fect knowledge of the two general codes of laws, one of 
which he ascribes unto Moses and the other unto 
Christ. 



THE LAW OF WORKS AND THE LAW OF 
FAITH. 



"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By 
what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith." 
— Rom. 3:27. Two laws are mentioned here, one 
is called the law of works and the other the law of 
faith. A careful study of the third and fourth chap- 
ters of Romans enables us to see that these terms are 
peculiar designations of the two covenants. The old 
covenant is the law of works and the new covenant, 



52 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

tlie law of faith. This interpretation is verined by 
verse 28 — "Therefore we conclude that a man is justi- 
fied by faith without the deeds of the law." Faith is 
here made the condition of justification under the new 
covenant, while deeds, or works, are set forth as con- 
ditions upon which justification was received under 
the law. If faith is the prevailing feature of the New 
Testament, it has been very appropriately denominated 
by the apostle, "the law of faith." If deeds were the 
prevailing feature of the Old Testament, we can see the 
appropriateness of denominating it the law of works. 

The thoughts before us are more explicitly set forth 
in Eom. 4:13-16 — "For the promise, that he should be 
the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his 
seed, through the law, but through the righteousness 
of faith. For if they which are of the law be In irs, 
faith is made void, and the promise made uf none elfect : 
because the law worketh wrath : for where no law is, 
there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, 
that it might be by grace; to the end the promise 
might be sure to all the seed: not to that only 
which is of the law, but to that also which is of the 
faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." 

It is here stated that the promise of Abraham was 
not fulfilled through the law; that is, through the 
Mosaic system: but through the righteousness of faith; 
that is, through the New Testament. Two reasons are 
assigned why the Abrahamic promise was not fulfilled 
under the law. First, it is stated in verse 14 that "if 



illE LAW OF WORKS AKD THE LAW OV FAITH. 53 

t!iey which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, 
and the promise made of none effect"; that is, since 
works were the conditions upon which justification was 
received under the Old Testament, to have fulfilled the 
Abrahamic promise under the law would have been to 
have ignored faith, the condition for justification 
under the Xew Testament. Second, it is stated in 
verse 16 that the Abrahamic covenant was not fulfilled 
under the law, "to the end the promise might be 
sure to all the seed." By faith, Abraham was to be a 
father of many nations, and as the law of Moses was a 
covenant of but one nation, to have fulfilled the Abra- 
hcimic promise while it was in vogue would have been 
to have excluded all the Gentile race from the bless- 
ings of Abraham. 

We will now turn to Paul's epistle to the Galatians. 
''Tills only would I learn of you: Received ye the 
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of 
faith?"— Gal. 3:2. ''He therefore that ministereth to 
you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth 
he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of 
fuith?" — Ver. 5. The reader will observe that in both 
these texts works are set forth as the principal feature 
and the condition of justification under the law of 
Moses: and faith as the i)rincipal feature and condition 
of justification under the Xew Testament. This surely 
t^nds to confirm to our minds the fact that the apostle 
when speaking of the law of works and the law of faith 
v/as spLiil. iiig of the two covenants. 



bi triE BKTTEU tESTAMENf. 

"For as many as are of the works of the law are 
under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one 
that continueth not in all things which are written in 
the book of the law to do them." — Ver. 10. Here 
again, the Mosaic code is set forth as a law of works. 
The curse of the law was upon him that did not per- 
form the works of the law, while the curse of the Xew 
Testament is upon him that believeth not. "He that 
believeth not shall be damned."— Mark 16:16. The 
blessing was likewise upon the doer in the Old Testa- 
ment (Deut. 11:26, 27), and upon the believer chiefly 
in the Xew Testament. "So then they which be of 
faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." — Gal. 3:9. 

"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight 
of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." — 
Gal. 3:11. We are not to understand by this text that 
justification was not received by the law during the 
time it was in force, for men were at that time justified 
by the works of the law. But since the Xew Testa- 
ment, or law^ of faith, is set up and the law of works 
has been abolished, men can be justified only by the 
principles of faith laid down in the Xew Testament. 

"And the law is not of faith: but. The man that doeth 
them shall live in them." — Ver. 12. Here it is plainly 
stated that the law is not of faith. From this it is in- 
tended that we should understand that the condition 
for obtaining favor under the law was not faith but 
works, as has already been set forth. The words 
"The man that doeth them shall live in them" are a 



THE LAW OF WORKS AND THE LAW OF FAITH. 55 

quotation from Lev. 18:5, which is Moses' own de- 
scription of the conditions of justification under the 
Old Testament. It is quoted by Paul to show that the 
law of Moses was a law of works. 

''But before faith came, we were kept under the 
law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards 
be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster 
to bring us unto Christ, that we might be Justi- 
fied by faith. But after that faith is come, we are 
no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the 
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." — Gal. 3: 
23-26. In this text again the two covenants are con- 
trasted as a law of w^orks and a law of faith. It is 
stated that "before faith came, we were kept under 
the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards 
by revealed." This language clearly shows that faith 
is not of the old covenant; for it is stated that the 
keeping of God's people under the law before Christ 
was before faith came. Can anything be more clearly 
set forth than the fact so plainly taught here that the 
law of the Old Testament was not a law of faith? And 
since the law of faith has come, the apostle says, "We 
are no longer under a schoolmaster." This schoolmas- 
ter he shows to have been the Old Testament law of 
works. 

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for 
Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them 
record that they have a zeal of God, but not according 
to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's 



56 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

righteousness, and going about to establish their own 
righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the 
rigliteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the 
law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the 
law. That the man which doeth those things shall live 
by them." — Rom. 10:1-5. 

A careful study of the epistle to the Romans and 
that to the Galatians will enable the reader to see that 
that which Paul in this text (ialls Israel's own right- 
eousness was not, as many suppose, a righteousness of 
their own invention, but the righteousness of the law, 
which was in one sense their own righteousness b;.- 
cause it had to be worked out by their own good deeds, 
the old covenant being the law of works. This inter- 
pretation is verified by the fact that Paul again refers 
us to the justification by faith under the new covenant 
in verse 4 — ''Christ is the end of the law for righteous- 
ness to every one that believeth." He also associates 
Moses' description of the obtaining of righteousness 
by works with what he calls "Israel's own righteous- 
ness." See verse 5, where he again quotes Moses' 
words in Lev. 18:5, which show that righteousness 
under the old covenant was obtained by the works of 
the law. 

There is yet one more text that we desire to intro- 
duce upon this subject. It is Gal. 2:16 — "Knowing 
that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but 
by the faith of Jesus Christ, even wb have believed in 



YOK:fi OF BONDAGE AND LAW OF LIBERTY. 57 

Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of 
Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the 
works of the law shall no man be justified." Com- 
mentation can not render plainer the fact so clearly 
s*^ated in this text that justification under the law of 
Moses was predicated upon the condition of works, and 
under the Xew Testament upon the condition of faith. 
This adds a sublime proof to the argument held before 
the reader in this chapter, that the Mosaic system Wiis 
a law of works and the Christian system, a law of 
f.ii h. The statement that by the works of the law no 
tlesh shall be justified signifies, as has been previously 
stated, that since the abolition of the law salvation can 
not be obtained upon such conditions. These are 
surely sufficient proofs that the law of works and the 
law of faith mentioned so frequently throughout the 
epistles of Paul are the two great law systems that 
came from Sinai and Zion. 



THE YOKE OF BOXDAGE AND THE LAW OF 
LIBERTY. 



"Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and 
continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, 
bat a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in 
his deed.''— Jas. 1:25. 

"So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged 
by the law of liberty." — Jas 2:12. 



o8 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

We have heard it affirmed that tlie law of liberfy 
mentioned in these texts is the decal 'gue, but tliis can 
not be trae, for three reasons 

First. Because the law mentioned here is a perfect 
law, and the decalogue was imperfect. In Ileb 8:7, 8 
we read concerning the decalogue: "For if that first 
covenant had been faultless, then should no plice 
have been sought for the second. For finding fault 
with them he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the 
Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house 
of Israel and with the house of Judah." Here it is 
plainly stated that the first covenant was not faultless, 
and that God found fault with it; therefore the first 
covenant was not perfect, and since the ten command- 
ments con^ititute the first covenant proper, the ten 
commandments are not perfect. Therefore they can 
not constitute "the perfect law^ of liberty" mentioned 
by James. 

Second. The very fact that the law mentioned is to 
be the standard by which Xew Testament saints shall 
be judged, proves that it is not the decalogue; for 
Christ says, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not 
my words, hath one that judgeth him: the woids that 
I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last 
day." — Jno. 12:48. If, therefore, the law of Christ is 
the standard by which the New Testament saints are 
to be judged, it is evidently the code Jiere denominated 
"the perfect law of liberty." 

Third, The fact that the law mentioned here is 



Yoke op bondage And law of tiBERTY. 59 

styled a law of liberty proves that it is not the old cov- 
enant; for it is said that it gendereth to bondage. 
Gal. 4:24. 

*' Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith 
Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again 
with the yoke of bondage." — Gal. 5:1. The tenor of 
the Galatian epistle shows that that church was in- 
clined to accept the law of Moses, and the apostle 
wrote his epistle to show them their error. The law 
of Moses must therefore be the yoke of bondage that 
he cautions them against becoming entangled with by 
exhorting them to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith 
Christ hath made them free." He was simply admon- 
ishing them to cling to the New Testament. This is a 
clear explanation of the law of liberty. 

We might cite a few other texts as additional 
proofs that the old covenant is a law of bondage. In 
Gal. 2:4 we read: ''And that because of false brethren 
unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out 
our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they 
might bring us into bondage." The general voice of 
the Galatian epistle shows that these false brethren 
were law-teachers who came to Galatia, and they were 
succeeding in persuading the Galatian brethren to 
accept the law of Moses. Therefore the bringing into 
bondage mentioned by Paul in this text, evidently 
signifies the leading of the Galatian church back to the 
law of Moses. This is a clear proof that Moses' 
law was a law of bondage. Another proof of this 



bO THE BETTER TESTAMEXt. 

point is found in Gal. 4:9 — ''But now, after that ye 
have known God, or rather are known of God, hew 
turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements 
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" It is 
evident that the desire of the Galatian church was to 
accept the law of Moses; therefore the bondage they 
desired to be in was a subjection to the law of Moses. 
This again proves the Old Testament to be a law of 
bondage. 

The crowning proof that Moses' law was a law of 
bondage is found in Gal. 4:24 — "Which things are an 
allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one 
from mount JSinai, which gendereth to bondage, which 
is Agar." Here it is plainly stated that the old cov- 
enant that came from mount Sinai gendereth to bond- 
age; therefore we must acknowledge that the law of 
Moses — the ten commandments and all the ceremonies 
and ordinances pertaining to it — constitutes the yoke 
of bondage mentioned by Paul. 

The foregoing we regard as abundant proof that the 
law of Moses is not the law of liberty mentioned by 
James. James was speaking of the law of Christ, which 
law, as we have already seen, is styled by Paul, "The 
liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." 

If we consider the nature of the law of Moses, we 
can see at once that it was a system of rigid bondage. 
All its ordinances and ceremonies are set forth in the 
most rigid manner. Take for instance the passover; it 
consisted of a lamb of the first year, taken on the even- 



YOKE OF BONDAGE AJ^D LAW OF LIBERTY. 61 

ing of the tenth of the first month in every year, and 
oil the evening of the fourteenth of the same month 
it was to be killed and to be eaten in haste with bitter 
herbs and unleav^ened bread. ?^othing was allowed to 
rjmain until the morning; that which was left was to 
be burned in the fire. For seven days after the eat- 
ing of this lamb they were not allowed to eat leavened 
bread nor to bake it nor to have any leaven in their 
houses. See the twelfth chapter of Exodus. Could 
there be any more rigid injunctions than these? Xo 
matter how inclement the weather, the lamb must 
be taken on the tenth of the first month, and the curse 
of God rested upon ihem if it was not done on that 
day. ^0 day would do to kill and eat the lamb but 
the fourteenth, and they were under the curse of God 
if they allowed so much as a bone to remain till morn- 
ing. If they should by any means forget to destroy all 
the leaven out of their houses, they were under the 
curse of God. AVhat rigid bondage ! They were also 
commanded in the law of Moses to pay their laborers 
their wages every evening. They were not allowed to 
keep their money over night. Just think of the incon- 
venience of such a law. x\nd thus we might continue 
to point cut the rigidity of the bondage under the Mo- 
saic system. Take for example even the fourth com- 
mandment, which is so highly prized by law-teachers of 
to-day. Could anything exhibit a greater degree of rigi- 
dity and bondage than it? On the seventh day they were 
not allowed to do any work, i ot so much as to prepare 



62 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

food for eating; they had to eat cold victuals which had 
been prepared the day before. To build a fire or even 
to pick up sticks was a crime that deserved capital 
punishment. I should think myself guilty of a crime 
before God if I should style such a system the law of 
liberty. 

Xow let us consider the commandments of the Xew 
Testament and obs* rve what a precious liberty accom- 
panies them. For instance, we are commanded in the 
Xew Testament to be baptized, but it is not stated how 
soon after conversion we are to be baptized; hence 
some liberty may be used in that case when inclem- 
ency of the weather or other inconveniences might 
hinder. We are also commanded to observe the com- 
munion supper, but it is no place stated how often 
or upon what day of the month or week it is to be 
observed. This is left to our conscience, the dictates 
of the Holy Spirit, the laws of propriety, etc. The 
Xew Testament simply says, "As often as ye eat this 
bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's 
death till he come." According to the teachings of 
the law of Christ, if a local church should announce 
an ordinance-meeting, and inclemency of the weather 
should render it inconvenient to have the ordinance- 
meeting, it could be deferred until a later date with- 
out sin. Xo ordinance of the Old Testament could 
have been thus deferred without sinning and incur- 
ring the curse of Grd. We might thus continue to 
review all the laws of the Xew Testament, and it would 



YOKE OF BONDAGE AND LAW OF LIBERTY. 03 

be found that every one of them exhibits a great 
degree of liberty, and none of them shows forth such 
rigid bondage as that which accompanied all the in- 
junctions of the law of Moses. ''Thou shalt" — I will 
stone you to death if you do not — was the language of 
the law of Moses; while the language of the ?few 
Testament is: "Ye ought," ''Ye should," "Ye shall 
be blessed if ye do," etc. Do you not see, dear reader, 
that the law of Moses can not properly be styled the 
law of liberty? But the perfect system of which our 
Savior is the author is such in very deed. 

Besides the bondage and liberty contained in their 
natures, there is another reason why the law of Moses 
is called a yoke of bondage and the law of Christ, the 
law of liberty. In Gal. 4:1-5 Paul compares the 
Jewish people under the law to children under tutors 
and governors until the time appointed of the father. 
While they were thus disciplined under the law, Paul 
says they were in bondage under the elements of the 
world. Ver. 3. By this he means to teach that the 
law did not save them from the elements of the world 
and from sin. Bat the law of Christ makes us free in- 
deed from sin and from all the elements of the world. 
For the Galatians to have left the law of Christ, and 
migrated to the law of Moses, would have been leaving 
a law of liberty by nature, under which they had been 
liberated from sin and the elements of the world, and 
migrating to a law rigid and slavish in its nature, and 
that would leave them bound under sin and the ele- 
ments of the world. 



64 THE ni:TTEU TE.^TAMEN'T. 

The chief arfrumeiit olt'ered by the law-teachers to 
substantiate the idea Ihat the decalogue is the law of 
liberty is the mentioning of some of the ten command- 
ments in such cl'>se connection with the law of liberty, 
in the second chapter of James. This is not an argu- 
ment in their favor, from the fact that some of the ten 
commandments are carried over into the Xew Testa- 
ment. A careful study of verses 8-11 will show that 
Christ has carried over into the Xew^ Testament such 
of the ten commandments as are included in what 
James calls the "royal law"---"Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself." Are all the ten commandments 
inclu ed in that saying? Xo. Jesus tells us that all 
tlie law hangs on two commandments. "Love God," 
and, "Love thy nei :hbor." Matt. 22:37-40. The ten 
commandments, as well as the rest of Moses' law, hang 
on these two commandments. If the reader will turn to 
the twentieth chapter of Exodus and read carefully the 
ten commandments, he will observe that the first four 
h:ing on love to God and the last six on love to man; 
therefore if only such of the ten commandments as 
hang on love to man have been carried over into the 
New Testament, none but the last six have been 
carried over. This will be strikingly verified in the 
mind of the reader when he has searched in vain for a 
quotation of any of the first four of the ten command- 
ments in the Xew Testament. 

That such only of the ten commandments as are 
included in love to man have been carried over into the 



Yoke of bondage and law of liberty. 65 

Xew Testament is taught also in Rom. 13:9 and 
Gal. 5 :14. For the convenience of the reader who may 
desire to investigate this I will insert the references of 
all the texts in which any of the ten commandments 
are quoted in the Xew Testament. As stated before, 
neither of the first four of the ten commandments in 
the decalogue are quoted in the Xew Testament. 

Tlie fifth commandment is quoted in Matt. 19;19 
>rark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph. G:2. 

The sixth commandment is quoted in Matt. 19:18 
Mcirk 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9; Jas. 2:11. 

The seventh commandment is quoted in Matt. 19:18 
Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9; Jas. 2:11. 

'J'he eighth commandment is quoted in Matt. 19:18 
Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9. 

The ninth commandment is quoted in Matt. 19:18 
Mark 13:19; Lnke 18:20; Rom. 13:9. 

The tenth commandment is quoted in Rom. 13:9. 

AVe are not to understand that the moral principles 
contained in those of the ten commandments that are 
not quoted in the Xew Testament are abolished. All 
the natural principles of righteousness set forth in 
them have been carried over into the X^ew Testament 
and are included in the commandments of the X^ew 
Testament, that lift up a standard even higher than 
that lifted up in the decalogue, but only six of the 
original ten, as I have now fully proved, have been 
literally carried over into the X^'ew Testament. Since, 
therefore, six of the ten commandments are adopted 



G6 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

into the New Testament, they are included in what 
James calls ''the perfect law of liberty." Is it there- 
fore any wonder that he would associate them so 
closely with his mention of that perfect law? 

The reader will remember that we have previously 
shown that Jesus enjoined all the law of Moses during 
Iiis lifetime. The fact, therefore, that (?he first four 
commandments of the decalogue are withheld from 
liis quotations in the four Gospels seems to be a special 
precaution in the Spirit of divine inspiration to verify 
the idea we have just set forth. 



TI[E ABOLITIOX OF THE LAW OF MOSES. 



That the law of Moses is abolished has been proved 
in the former chapters. But there are a number of 
texts that nail this point down firmly, which it was not 
proper to explain under any previous heading; hence, 
we insert this chapter. We are intending to make this 
work thorough, and more especially do we desire to 
establish the fact that the law of Moses is abolished, 
since the deception that it is not abolished is abroad 
in the land. 

The proofs of this fact are so numerous in the 
word of God that it is a marvel that any man who 
would deny it should feign himself a student of the 
Hible. What could be plainer than the fullowing? 
"Tlie law and the prophets were until John: since that 



THE ABOLITION OF THE LAW OF MOSES. 67 

time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man 
presseth into it." — Luke 16:16. We do not under- 
stand from this text that the law was abolished at the 
beginning of John's ministry, but that it affirms the 
law to have been preached until John; since that time 
it has been in divine order to preach the kingdom of 
God. The law was preached of course by law-teacheis, 
as it should have been, during the entire incarnation 
of Christ, but the special inspiration of God was from 
the time of John placed upon the kingdom of God. And 
why should inspiration be drawn from the teaching of 
the law to the preaching of the kingdom of God, if the 
law w^as not at that time about to be abolished, and 
God's kingdom to be set up in its stead? The idea 
that the law of Moses is carried over into the kingdom 
of God can not be sustained by this text. 

Again, we read: "For sin shall not liave dominion 
over you: for ye are not under the law, but under 
grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not 
under the law, but under grace? God forbid." — Eom. 
6:14, 15. "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not 
under the law." — Gal. 5:18. "Wherefore the law was 
our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we 
might be justified by faith. But after that faith is 
come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." — Gal. 
3:24, 25. The language of these texts is so very plain 
that we could hardly think of a man endeavoring to 
dodge the sentiments so clearly set forth in them. 
Yet men will, even in the face of these plain declaru- 



68 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

tions, affirm that God's people are still to be governed 
hy the law. 

We sometimes hear hiw-teacher^ argue as follows: 
''To be under the law means to be under the condemna- 
li.)n of the law; that is, to be living in disobedience to 
the law, and to be not under the law means to be living 
iii obe»lience to the law"; hence they argue that these 
texts do not teach the abolition of the law, but that 
(Jod's people under the Xew Testament receive grace 
in the atoning blood of Jesus to live in obedience to 
I he law. This is truly a strange exposition of scripttire. 

Let us test their exegesis by other texts. "But 
v/lien the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his 
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem 
tliem that were under the law, that we might receive 
tiio adoption of sons." — Gal. 4:4, 5. Paul here speaks 
of those who lived under the law (the Jew^s), and 
aihrms that Christ, in order to be their Eedeemer, was 
made under the law; that is, was born, brought up, 
:nid preached under the law. If the law-teacher's idea 
of "under the law" be correct, we are to believe that 
Jesus was brought up and lived all his life in disobedi- 
ence to the Itiw. This surely reveals the ridiculousness 
of their rule of interpreting scripture. 

To be not under the law means to be not governed by 
it. God's pe<M lo are not governed by the law of Moses; 
because it is done away and superseded by a more per- 
fect law, th<' tiw of Clirist. 

"For as numv as are of the woiks of the law are 



THE ABOLITION" OF THE LAW OF MOSES. G9 

under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one 
that continueth not in all things which are written in 
the book of the law, to do them. . . . Christ hath 
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a 
curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that 
hangeth on a tree."— Gal. 3:10-13. 

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever 
of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from 
grace." — Gal. 5:4. 

In these texts we have additional proofs that the law 
of Moses is abolished. God's people were under a 
curse to do all things written in the Mosaic system as 
long as they were under that system, but Christ hath 
redeemed us from that curse. What could this signify 
but a release from obedience to that rigid system? 
Observe that Paul declares in substance, in the last 
text quoted above, that men can not be Christians and 
cling to the law of Moses. He declares them to be 
fallen from grace. 

Paul understood clearly the abolition of the ilosaic 
system. He says in another place, "Know ye not, 
brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how 
that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he 
liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is 
bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; 
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law 
of her hu>ban(l. So then if, while her husband liveth, 
she be married to anoih(»r man, she shall be called an 
adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from 



70 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be 
married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye 
also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; 
that ye should be married to another, even to him who 
is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth 
fruit unto God."— Eom. 7:1-4. 

"But now w^e are delivered from the law, that 
being dead wherein we were held; that we should 
serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of 
the letter. "—Verse 6. 

The letter mentioned above is the entire Mosaic 
system. 

Ten-commandment-teachers frequently affirm that 
the decalogue is not included in this law, but their say- 
ing is refuted in verse 7, where Paul quotes from the law 
under consideration, saying, "I had not known sin but 
by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law 
had said. Thou shalt not covet." He quotes the tenth 
commandment in the decalogue. This shows that the 
law in question included the ten commandments*; and 
the fact that we are not under the law could not be 
more plainly stated than in these verses. He uses the 
marriage relation as set forth under the law to illus- 
trate his idea. As in the law the wife is bound under 
the government of her husband as long as he lives, so 
says Paul were the people of God bound to be governed 
by the law of Moses as long as it lived. He considers the 
law as the first husband of God's people and Christ 
their second husband. As, according to the law, the 



THE ABOLITION OF THE LAW OF MOSES. 71 

wife is loosed from the law of her first husband at his 
decease and is at libarty to be married to another, so tho 
church was delivered from her obligations to the law 
when it was abolished, and became married unto Christ. 

That Paul's idea in this text should be antagonized 
by false teachers seems almost a miracle. But it is 
sometimes asked by law-teachers why Paul uses the 
peculiar expression that the church is dead to the law, 
if it is the law that is dead. He means by this expres- 
sion to signify her release from obligation to the law. 
Verse 6, which we quoted above, shows that the law is 
dead. Its w^ords are: "We are delivered from the 
law, that being dead wherein we were held." Accord- 
ing to this he sets forth the idea that the church is 
dead to the law in the same sense that the wife is 
dead to her husband w^hen he dies. 

The second marriage of the church is truly a happy 
one. Her first husband was rigid and cruel and stood 
by her constantly with handfuls of stones to stone her 
to death for the slightest digression from his rigid 
desires. But the second is kind, tender, and plenteous 
in mercy, always ready to nourish and cherish his 
wife. 

The law-teachers ignore the marriage of Christ to 
the church by declaring that the first husband is not 
deceased, and although he was buried nearly two thou- 
sand years ago, they have digged up the skeleton and 
are now exhibiting it to the world as the first and only 
husband of the church of God. This their folly is 



72 THE BETTER TKSTAMKXt. 

unparMlleled in all the past ages, except when the 
brazen serpent, that had been used for a good purpose 
in Moses' day in the wilderness, was several hundred 
years afterward foolishly picked up by the children of 
Israel and worshiped. 2 Kings 18:4. 

Let us now notice the date when the law was abolished. 
In Eph. 2: 13-16 we read: "But now in Christ Jesus 
ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the 
blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made 
both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of 
partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the 
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in 
ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new 
man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile 
both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain 
the enmity thereby." 

The abolition of the old system is here plainly 
affirmed. Christ abolished in his flesh, it is here 
stated, "the law of commandments contained in ordi- 
nances." By this is doubtless meant the law of the 
ten commandments encircled by the many ordinances 
and ceremonies of the Mosaic system. 

As we have partially considered these texts before, we 
do not desire to be tedious in this place. The date of 
the abolition is all we desire to bring out. In order to 
do this we might ask : What is the reason assigned in 
this place for the abolition of the law? The answer 
is: "That he [Christ] might reconcile both [Jews and 
Gentiles] unto God in one body by the cross." Ac- 



1:iiE ABOLITION 0^ THE LAW OF MOSES. 73 

cording to this the law was abolished at the time the 
reconciliation of the entire human family unto the 
Father was made. What is the date of this reconcilia- 
tion? Rom. 5:10 answers: "We were reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son." This locates the abolition 
of the law unmistakably at the death of Christ. 

''Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances 
that was against us, which was contrary to us, and 
took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and 
having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a 
show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." — 
Col. 2:14, 15. Here we have the statement that 
Christ "blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that 
was against us [which was unmistakably the Mosaic 
system], . . , nailing it to his cross." Observe that 
he points to the time when Christ hung on the cross as 
the date of the abolition of the law. 

The law-teachers say the law said to be abolished in 
this text does not include the decalogue But let us 
see. Paul continues in verses 16, 17, saying, "Let no 
man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in 
respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the 
sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; 
but the body is of Christ." Among the things said to 
be abolished in the abolition of the law of command- 
ments is the sabbath day, which was enjoined in the 
fourth commandment of the decalogue. 

We hear Seventh-day Adventists affirm that the term 
"sabbath days" in this text, refers not to the weekly 



74 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

sabbaths, but to the annual sabbaths. But in tl "s 
they are mistaken; because the annual sabbaths are 
included in this text under the appellation "hol}'- 
days." Therefore the expression "sabbath days" can 
not possibly refer to anything else than the regular 
round of weekly seventh-day observance. If the 
seventh-day sabbath was included in the abolished law, 
the decalogue that enjoined it was also included in it. 
So beyond doubt this text fixes the abolition of the 
entire law of Moses at the death of Christ. This 
accounts for the teaching and practicing of the law of 
Moses by Christ and his apostles during his lifetime. 

It is offered as an argument in favor of seventh-day- 
keeping that Christ kept the seventh day. But this 
argument is of no weight ; because Christ kept all the 
rest of Moses' law, as it was his duty to do, because 
the law was not yet abolished. He also taught his 
disciples to practice the entire Mosaic system. He 
said to them on one occasion, "The scribes and the 
Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever 
they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not 
ye after their works; for they say and do not." — Matt. 
23:2, 3. We have as much ground to argue the con- 
tinuation of any other part of the Mosaic system in 
the gospel age, from the fact that Jesus and his apos- 
tles practiced it, as the seventh-day-keepers have in 
favor of the seventh day. 

We will now search for the date when the New Testa- 
ment came into force. **And for this cause he is the 



THE Ar>OlJTl()N OK THE LAW OF MOSES. 75 

mediator of the Xew Testament, that by means of 
death, for the redemption of the transgressions tliat 
were under the first testament, they which are called 
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For 
where a testament is, there mast also of necessity be 
the death of the testator."— Heb. 9:15, 16. The 
apostle here considers tlie Xew Testament in the light 
of the Avill of Christ, and shows that it came into fore e 
at his death, just as the last will and testament of any 
other man comes into force at the death of the testator. 
This accords with the date the Bible fixes for the 
abolition of the Old 'J'estament. Christ's death ended 
the law and brought the Xew Testament into force. 

But we hear the seventh-day teachers arguing that 
the seventh day was kept after the death of Christ. 
Yes, this is true of the Jewish people, but not of the 
Christian church. The last account we have of the 
observance of the seventh day by Christians was in the 
case of the two Marys who rested according to the laAv, 
on the seventh day when Christ lay in the tomb. 1" e 
Christians throughout the Acts of the Apostles ofun 
went into Jewish meetings on the Jewish Sabbath and 
preached to them, but this is no proof that the Chris- 
tian church observed that day. Their weekly meetin, s 
were held always on the first day of the week. 

But supposing they had kept the seventh day for soi e 
time after the death of Christ, that would be no unan- 
swerable proof that it was not abolished at that time; 
for it was some time after the death of Christ before 



^6 THE BETTER TLSTA.MF.NT. 

t'le Christians learned tliat the law was abolisher\ 
Some of them knew it very soon (I speak of the ministers 
and apostles.), but the masses lingered long beneath 
the Sinaitic code. 

Jesus said to the apostles in Jno. 1(3:12, 13, ''I have 
yet many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear 
them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is 
come, he will guide you into all, truth: for he shall not 
speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that 
shall he speak; and he wnll show you things to come." 
According to this text Jesus had some things to show 
to his apostles that they were not, during his incarnt- 
tion, prepared to receive. But he promised them that 
they should be revealed unto them by the Holy Ghost 
that should be given after his ascension to the Father. 
These promised revelations were surely given by the 
Holy Ghost after he had been received on the day of 
Pentecost, and they have surely been placed on record 
in the ISTew Testament, and w^hat ideas are on record 
in the Xew Testamjent that the Holy Ghost revealed 
after Christ's ascension, except the many thoughts 
concerning the abolition of the Mosaic system? There 
is no other idea revealed in the epistles, that Christ 
left for the Holy Ghost to explain to his church. 

So we see the things that the apostles were not able to 
bear were not such as pertain in reality to the Chris- 
tian system. In fact, nothing could have been added to 
the Christian system after the death of Christ ; for as we 
have seen before, the Xew Testament is Christ's will, 



THE ABOLITIOX OF THE LAW OF MOSES. 77 

and came into force at his death, and nothing can be 
added to a will after the death of the testator. The 
doctrines of the Xew Testament were all introduced 
during the lifetime of Christ, but it was unnecessary 
that he should spend time explaining the abolition of 
Ltie law, until after it had been abolished at his death. 
Christ told the people on the mount that he had come 
to fulfil] the law, and that the law ended when ful- 
filled; but he said nothing to them concerning the 
time when the law would be abolished, or when the 
Xew Testament Avould come into force, or when the 
sa rifices would be antityped, etc. Such things he 
I 'ft to be explained by the Holy Ghost. 

For a time after Christ's resurrection it a|)pcars that 
the observance of the principal part of the Mosaic law 
continued uninterrupted among the Christians, but 
when the Gentiles begaii to accept Christ, the law 
question became an agitation among them, and in a 
little consultation of the ministers held at Jerusalem, 
( ocorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts) the Holy 
(ihost decided that they should not bind that system 
u];)on the convei'ts. They wrote a letter unto tl e 
church at Aiiti(j(:h, which seemed to be the center (>f 
that agitation, as follows: "The apostles and elders 
and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which 
are of the Gentiles in Antioc h and Syria and Cilicia : 
Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which wei t 
out from us have troubled you with words, subverting 
your souls, saying, Ye mi.st be circuincised, and ktip 



78 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: it 
seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, 
to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barna- 
bas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the 
name of our Lord Jesus Christ. AVe have sent therefore 
Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the sar e 
things by mouth. For it seemed good to the H(.ly 
Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden 
than these necessary things: that ye abstain from 
meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from 
things strangled, and from fornication: from which 
if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye 
well."— Acts 15:23-29. 

It is argued that this epistle was intended to enjoin 
only the Gentile converts, and that the apostles 
believed it necessary for the Jews to be circumcised 
and to continue to keep the law as before. If this is 
true (a thing hardly credible), it was because the Holy 
Ghost had not yet fully revealed to the apostles the 
abolition of the Mosaic law; beeause later, in the epis- 
tles, it is shown very clearly that those who had been 
shut up under the law in the old dispensation (the 
Jews), after faith had been introduced to the world by 
Christ, were no longer under the law. Gal. 3:23-25. 
We can not fail to see the abortion of the Mosaic laAv 
taught in the New Testament. 



THE RELATION OF THE TWO TESTAMENTS. 79 

THE DELATION OF THE TWO TESTAMENTS. 



There are some ideas set forth in the scriptures 
that properly belong under this heading, without 
which our volume would be incomplete. The first 
that shall claim our attention is that of the gospel in 
the Old Testament. This is a favorite argument of 
the law-teachers, and must not for their sake, be 
passed unnoticed. 

"And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify 
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel 
unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be 
blessed."— Gal. 3:8. 

"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us 
of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to 
come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, 
as well as unto them: but the word preached did not 
profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that 
heard it."— Heb. 4:1, 2. ! 

Here we have two plain proofs of the gospel having 
been preached in the Old Testament dispenj^ation. 
Law-teachers generally afii]m that the ten command- 
ments constitute the gospel that was preached in those 
days. Hence they argue that the decalogue being a 
part of the gospel, can not be abolished. But they 
are mistaken in their conclusion that the ten com- 
mf.'mlments is the gospel that was preached unto Abra- 
ham and unto the Jews in the wiulerness. We can 
place a better interpretation upon these texts. 



80 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

The gospel of Jesus Christ, as has been previously 
hhown, contains every principle of righteousness. By 
this we mean that there can exist no principle of right- 
eousness that is not contained in the gospel of Jesus 
Christ and that is not on record in the twenty-seven 
books which we call the Xew Testament. Every prm- 
ciple of righteousness, therefore, that was contained in 
the la^v of Moses or was preached by any prophet or 
patriarch of the old dispensation, is just that much of 
the gospel iu the Old Testament. And those principles 
of righteousness are by no means abolished in the New 
Testament dispensation. 

If every principle of righteousness contained in the 
law were to be found in the ten commandments, and 
none but natural principles of righteousness were con- 
t;iined in them, then it could truthfully be said that 
the ten commandments was the gospel that was 
preached in the old dispensation. But, as we have 
previously sren, there are pjinciples of righteousness 
in the law that are not contained in the decalogue. 
There is also at least one ceremony in the decalogue 
that contains no natural principle of righteousness; 
therefore the law-teachers fail in their attempt to 
establish the decalogue in the New Testament upon 
the scriptures quoted above. 

Not only are there natural principles of righteousness 
in the Mosaic code outside of the decalogue, but the 
prophetic books also contain many New Testament 
principles that are nowhere set forth in the Mosaic 



THE RELATION OF THE TWO TESTAMENTS. 81 

code. These are also to be placed under the heading 
of the gospel in the Old Testament. Besides the dec- 
laration of the natural principles of righteousness the 
gospel was preached also under the law in the types 
and shadows. It is to the types and shadows that Heb. 
4:1, 2 has special reference. 

Paul is here writing upon the subject of rest. He 
shows that the spiritual rest of soul enjoyed in this 
gospel age was typified by the literal rest obtained 
under the law; and that the preaching of the true 
spiritual rest under the gospel was typified by the 
preaching unto the Israelites in the wilderness of the 
rest awaiting them in literal Canaan. Ex. 33:14. 

The amount of gospel contained in the law and the 
prophets is the percentage of law that is contained in 
the Xew Testament. The New Testament being, as 
aforesaid, a compendium of all the natural principles 
of righteousness, of course it contains all the righteous 
principles that were contciined in the law. Nothing else 
that pertained to the Old Testament has been carried 
over into the New. The amount of law contained in the 
gospel has been beautifully explained by Paiil in Rom. 
8:3, 4 — ''For what the law could not do, in that is was 
weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the 
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in 
the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be 
fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the 
Spirit/' Here it is plainly declared that the death of 
Christ f ulfilLs the righteousness of the law in us ; that is, 



82 THK BETTER TESTAMENT. 

the righteous principles that were contained in the law. 
This establishes the idea that we have just advanced, 
and we need not look for further proof. 

AVe will now strike another relationship between the 
Old and the New Testament. Paul says in Rom. 
3:31: *'Do we then make void the law through faith? 
God forbid: yea, we establish the law." This text is 
a great hobby to the law-teachers; but they misunder- 
stand it. Paul did not mean to teach here the propa- 
gation of the law of Moses in the gospel dispensation, 
as they suppose. 

There are numerous internal proofs that the law of 
Moses was not a perfect system, and that the giver of 
that system looked for a more perfect system to be 
revealed at some future time. He piophesied of that 
perfect system. He also instituted many beautiful 
types in the ceremonies of the old system that mark 
out perfectly the character of that perfect law that 
should come. The Xew Testament being that perfect 
system, and revealing to the world perfectly the anti- 
type of all those types and shadows, and a fulfillment 
of every prophecy of Moses, is the best proof of the 
genuineness of the law of Moses. But this by no 
means proves the continuation of Moses' law this side 
of the introduction of the gospel, but it contrariwise 
disproves it. The N'ew Testament fulfills also the 
hundreds of prophecies uttered by the inspired proph- 
ets of the Old Testament dispensation; hence it estab- 
lishes also the prophets. On the other hand th^ law 



THE RELATION OF THE TWO TESTAMENTS. 83 

and the prophets foreshow so exactly the character of 
the New Testament, hundreds of years before the 
birth of our Savior, that they constitute the best proof 
of the genuineness of the gospel that can be resorted 
to as a defense against infidelity. So we might say the 
New Testament establishes the Old Testament and the 
Old Testament establislies the New Testament. 

Law-teachers sometimes affirm that if the law is 
abolished, we had better discard entirely the Old 
Testament. But against this idea we will raise rebell- 
ion. Viewing the subject in a certain light we might 
consent to set it aside entirely. Since the New Testa- 
ment sets forth every principle of righteousness, we 
can by its instruction alone get home to heaven. But 
the Old Testament is of much value to us, not only 
because it establishes the inspiration of the New Testa- 
m3nt, but because it also contains the history of mauy 
incidents in the lives of holy men and women of old, 
which reveal to us the nature of God's dealings with 
man, and afford us excellent models of true integrity. 

It is intended by God that we consider the loyal 
deeds of the Old Testament saints as examples unto us, 
as the following scriptures evidently show. "For 
whatsoever things were written aforetime were written 
for our learning, that we through patience and comfort 
of the scriptures might have hope." — Rom. 15:4. 
''But with many of them God was not well pleased: for 
they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these 
things were our examples, to the intent we should not 



84 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be 
ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written. 
The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to 
play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of 
them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty 
thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of 
them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, 
and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all those 
things happened unto them for ensamples; and they 
are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends 
of the world are come." — 1 Cor. 10:5-11. 

These scriptures show that all the records in the Old 
Testament, both of the righteous and of the wicked 
deeds of the people, are intended for instruction unto 
us. We are to imitate the taith, meekness, gentleness, 
patience, trust, trueness, boldness, long-suffering, etc., 
of the characters on record in the Old Testament ; and 
we are to take warning from all the wicked deeds per 
formed by those whose names appear in the Old Testa- 
ment and from the dealings of God with them, that 
we may not fall into similar sins. 

One of the most blessed thoughts conre3ted with 
this subject is that the New Testament affords grace 
to imitate all the good examples of the saints in the 
Old Testament, and to refrain from falling into errors 
into which they fell. This idea will be more fully 
explained in a later chapter. 



ifi'ALSJa CLAIM OF tWO LAWS IN OLD TESTAMENT. 85 

THE FALSE CLAIM OF TWO LAWS IN THE 
OLD TESTAMENT. 



Law-teachers are often driven to their wits' end 
to find argument to sustain their theory. One of their 
peculiar dodges of the many texts in the New Testa- 
ment declaring the law abolished, is that there are two 
laws in the Old Testament. They divide the law of 
Moses into two parts. The ten commandments they 
consider one law, and the rest of Moses' injunctions 
they style another law. Whenever they can wrest a 
text of scripture into a showing that the law is not 
abolished, they say, "That refers to the ten-co;iimand- 
ment law"; and when they find a text declaring the 
abolition of the law, they say, "That refers to the 
injunctions of Moses apart from the ten command- 
ments." 

These two laws which they claim to see in the Old 
Testament they variously style the law of God and the 
law of Moses, the moral law and the ceremonial law, 
the spiritual law and the carnal law. The ten com- 
mandments they call the spiritual law, moral law, and 
law of God; the remaining injunctions of Moses, the 
carnal law, the ceremonial law, and law of Moses. 
They make indeed a show of argument here to the 
minds of those who have not given this matter an 
investigation. But when we investigate their ideas 
thoroughly in the scriptures they appear ridiculous 
from the foundation up. 



86 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

We will take up the expressions moral and ceremo- 
nial law according to the application of the law- 
teachers, and see how we can harmonize them with 
the scriptures. If it be proper to divide the ten com- 
mandments from the rest of the law of Moses, styling 
them a moral law and the remainder a ceremonial law, 
then the ten commandments must contain all the 
moral part of the law and no ceremonial law; other- 
wise the argument is unsound. 

If we examine carefully the Pentateuch, we find that 
there are some moral laws in it not contained in the 
ten commandments. For instance, in Ex. 21:18, 19 
it is forbidden that men should strive. This is truly a 
moral law, but it is not contained in the ten com- 
mandments, except in striving one should kill the 
other. But if neither should be a murderer, and 
there had been no moral laws in the Old Testament 
except what were contained in the ten commandments, 
their pugilistic encounter would not have been a sin. 
We see here at least one moral law in the Pentateuch 
not contained in the ten comandments ; therefore, the 
law-teachers' division of Moses' law into moral and 
ceremonial is incorrect. 

Not only are there moral laws in the Pentateuch 
outside of the decalogue, but there is also one ceremo- 
nial law in the decalogue. I refer to the fourth com- 
mandment, the favorite of all law-teachers. It is not 
properly a moral law. It forbids no evils, nor com- 
mands any righteous deeds; it onlv enioins abstinen^^ 



False claim of two laws ik old testament. 87 

upon the seventh day from that which was lawful upon 
any of the other six. It is properly to be classed with 
the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament; so we can 
by no means acknowledge the law-teachers' division of 
the Mosaic system into moral and ceremonial laws 
where they make the division. 

We doubt if there is a single instance in the Bible 
where the term "law" applies exclusively to the moral 
laws of Moses or to his ceremonial laws. We can 
find instances where Bible writers speak of the law, 
when they dwell principally upon some ceremonies in 
the context; and we can also find texts which speak of 
the law, when the context dwells chiefly upon some of 
Moses' moral teachings, but this by no means proves 
that there are two laws in the Old Testament. 

We will now consider the terms "law of God" and 
"law of Moses" as applied by law-teachers. They 
affirm boldly that the ten commandments constitute 
the law of God, and are therefore unrepealable. 
"But," say they, "the ceremonies are styled the law 
of Moses, and it is that law that the Xew Testament 
declares to be abolished." Let us see how such an 
application of these terms will harmonize with the 
teachings of the scriptures. In Xeh. 8:1 we read: 
"And all the people gathered themselves together as 
one man into the street that was before the water-gate; 
and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book 
of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded 
to Israel." According to the law-teachers' application 



iSS Irnte BETTER TESTAMEN*. 

of the term *'law of Moses," Ezra must !have !had oil 
this occasion a book which contained all the command- 
ments which Moses had given but the ten command- 
ments. Let us read verse 8 — "So they read in the 
book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, 
and caused them to understand the reading." Here 
the same book which in verse 1 was styled "the law of 
Moses" is called "the law of God." Verse 14 calls it 
"the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses." 
This gives us a sensible interpretation of the two 
expressions, "law of God" and "law of Moses." It is 
the same law; called "the law of God" because he in- 
spired it, and "the law of Moses" because he wrote it. 
It is very clearly seen that ]S^ehemiah knew no distinc- 
tion betwe<^n the law of God and the law of Moses. 
That theory is very modern, it originated among mod- 
ern law-teachers and will die among them. 

The fact is, the book mentioned throughout the Old 
Testament under the appellations "law of God" and 
"law of Moses," was simply the Pentateuch. For the 
convenience of the reader we will give some references 
in which it is mentioned. It is called the "law of 
God" in Josh. 24:26 and ]S^eh. 8:18. It is called the 
"law of Moses" in Josh. 1:7, 8; 8:31, 32; 22:5; 23:6; 

1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 23:25; Ezra 3:2; 2 Chron. 
23:18; 25:4; 30:16. It is called the "law of the 
Lord" in 2 Kings 10:31; 1 Ohron. 16:40; 22:12; 2 
Chron. 12:1; 31:3, 4; Ezra 7:10. And in Josh. 8:34; 

2 Kings 22:8, 11; and Ezra 10:3 it is called simply 



FALSE CLAIM OF TWO LAWS IK OLD TESTAMENT. 89 

"tlie law." No man of candor can read these texts 
and fail to see that the division of the old law into two 
parts according to the modern law-teachers' theory is 
incorrect. 

The law-teachers will doubtless affirm that they base 
their ideas upon Is'ew Testament texts. We will there- 
fore carry this point into the Xew Testament. If 
their theory is correct and the decalogue is truly called 
the law of God in the Xew Testament while the re- 
mainder of Moses' law is called the law of Moses, then 
there must be no texts found that style the decalogue 
the law of Moses, nor must there be a text found that 
styles the ceremonies the law of God; otherwise their 
theory is refuted. 

AVe will hear Jesus upon this subject. In Jno. 7:19 
he says, "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet 
none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to 
kill me?" Here it is very clear that Jesus calls that law 
which forbade murder the law of Moses. This is one 
scriptural evidence against the theory in question. In 
verse 22 he says, ''Moses then gave unto you circumci- 
sion." In verse 28 he says, "If a man on the sabbath 
day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should 
not be broken, ' ' etc. Here Christ tells us the law of cir- 
cumcision is in the law of Moses, and behold it is in 
that part of the law which law-teachers call ceremo- 
nial; so Jesus calls both the decalogue and the rest of 
Moses' commandments the law of Moses. 

Xow let us look at two of his sayings concerning the 



!)0 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

en commandments. "For God commanded, saying, 
Honor thy father and thy mother." — Matt. 15:4. 
"For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother." 
— ^lark 7:10. In one of these texts Jesus makes the 
decalogue the law of God and in the other he makes it 
tlie law of Moses. This shows unmistakably that 
Jesus knew no division of the law into the law of God 
and the law of Moses. 

"And when the days of her purification according 
to tlie law of Moses w^ere accomplished, they brought 
liini to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is 
written in the law of the Lord, Every male that open- 
eth the womb shall be ca,lled holy to the Lord) ; and to 
oifir a sacrifice according to that which is said in the 
liw of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young 
pigeons." — Luke 2:22-24. It is evident from this text 
that Luke knew nothing about a distinction between the 
law of God and the law of Moses. He uses these terms 
interchangeably and applies them to that part of the 
law which law-teachers would call ceremonial. 

"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy 
under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer pun- 
ishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who 
hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath 
counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was 
sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite 
unto the Spirit of grace?"— Heb. 10:28, 29. Paul 
here speaks of two laws, but not as do the law-teachers. 
He seems to recognize one law in the Xew Testament 



FALSE CLAIM OF TWO LAWS IN OLD TESTAMENT. 91 

aud one law in the Old Testament. That in the Old 
Testament he styles the law of Moses, and in contra- 
distinction to this law he places a covenant which his 
language shows clearly to have been given by the Son 
of God. This covenant has been hitherto explained. 
Observe the application he makes of the term "law of 
Moses." He says, ''He that despised Moses' law, died 
without mercy, under two or three witnesses." The 
Bible-reader will see at once that the ten command- 
ments are here, with the rest of the law, styled the 
law of Moses because he knows that the death penalty 
was imposed chiefly upon those who broke one of the 
ten commandments. So we may boldly affirm that 
the Xew Testament does not divide the old system 
into the law of God and the law of Moses, as the law- 
toachers do. 

We will next consider their terms "spiritual" and 
"carnal laws," which terms they apply as they do 
"law of God" and "law of Moses," and "moral" and 
"ceremonial law." They read Rom. 7:14, where Paul 
says, "The law is spiritual" ; then they read Heb. 7 :16, 
where he speaks of a "carnal commandment," and 
Heb. 9:10, where he speaks of "carnal ordinances"; 
then they affirm that they have proved their two-law 
theory. The spiritual law, they say, is the ten com- 
mandments, and the carnal law is the remainder of 
Moses' teachings. Then they affirm that every text in 
the New Testament teaching the abolition of the law 
refers to the carnal part of the law of Moses. A false 



92 TflE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

teacher never advanced a theory more absolutely false 
and ungrounded than this one. 

If the reader will turn to Heb. 7:16, he will see that 
Paul makes no such application of the expression 
*'carna] commandment" as the law-teachers affirm. 
Speaking of Christ, he says, "Who is made, not after 
the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power 
of an endless life." How can any sensible man say 
that Paul here shows that one part of the law of Moses 
is carnal and the other part spiritual. Nothing of the 
kind is hinted at; it is simply stated that Christ was 
made "not after the law of a carnal commandment." 
Jf o reference is made to any part of the Mosaic system. 

Heb. 9:10 speaks of the tabernacle, as verse 1 of the 
same chapter shows. This tabernacle, Paul tells us 
in verses 9, 10, "was a figure for the time then pres- 
ent, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, 
that could not make him that did the service perfect, 
as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in 
meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal 
ordinances, imposed on them until the time of the 
reformation." Xo mention is made here of any ordi- 
nances or commandments but those which pertain to 
the service of the tabernacle. The time of refor- 
mation mentioned, till which this tabernacle was to 
stand, is the coming of Christ. The word "carnal" in 
verse 10 is from sarx^ in the Greek, which signifies 
flesh. Tliprefore the ordinances of the tabernacle 
were only flesh-ordinaijces, or, in other words, like the 



SHADOW OF THINGS AKD THINGS THEMSELVES. 93 

entire Mosaic system, were only outward and pertained 
to the flesh, and could not purge the heart from sin. 
How any man can see in this text a proof that the 
ceremonies of which Moses was the author, comprised 
a system separate from his moral commandments, and 
styled a carnal law, is a mystery to me. 

The entire Mosaic system, decalogue and all, might 
properly be styled a carnal law, in the same sense that 
Paul styles the ordinances of the tabernacle carnal; 
for it only pertained to the flesh, and by it, as will be 
proved in its proper place, no cleansing of the heart 
from sin could be obtained. Also, we could properly 
style the entire Mosaic system a spiritual law; because 
it was a system of religion that emanated from God. 
It was good, holy, and valuable in its time. 



THE SHADOW OF HEAVEXLY THIXGS AND 
HEAVENLY THINGS THEMSELVES. 



1:^ the former chapters we have compared the 
bondage and liberty, the conditions of works and 
faith, etc., in the two testaments; and now we shall 
consider them in the light of typical and antitypical 
systems. The two covenants are held up in this light 
in Heb. 9:23, which I quote. "It was therefore neces- 
sary that the patterns of things in the heavens should 
be purified with these; but the heavenly things them- 
selves with better sacrifices than these." In this 



94 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

text we have the expressions ** patterns of heavenly 
things" and ''heavenly things themselves." These 
are designations of the two covenants. The old 
covenant was the pattern of heavenly things, and the 
new covenant is constituted by the heavenly things 
themselves. In this the old covenant is clearly set 
forth as typical of the sublime and glorious ncAV 
covenant. 

Some law-teachers affirm that the expression "heav- 
enly things" used here refers not to anything upon 
earth, but to heaven itself. This they would doubtless 
try to prove by reading the text we have quoted in 
connection with the verse that follows it, where it is 
stated, that "Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made with hands, which are the figures of the true; 
but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence 
of God for us." They would argue that "heaven 
itself" is here placed in contradistinction to "the holy 
places made with hands," but this is a mistake; the 
text simply states that Christ entered not into the holy 
places made with hands, which are figures of the true, 
but into heaven itself. If the phrase "which are the 
figures of the true" were omitted, then "heaven 
itself" would be placed in contradistinction to the 
"tabernacle made with hands" and they would have a 
strong argument in favor of their idea that heaven 
above is the antitype of the Mosaic tabernacle ; but as 
the language stands, the tabernacle that is here called 
"the true" is shown to be the antitype of the taber- 



SHADOW OF THIJS^GS AiYD TUIXGS TIIKMSELVES. 05 

nacle made with hands. The true taheriiacle is the 
church of the living God, which pertains to the new 
covenant. 

But we would not forget to notice that there is a 
shade of difference between ''the patterns of things in 
the heavens" and "the holy places made with hands." 
The latter expression refers only to the tabernacle 
Moses pitched in the wilderness, while the former 
includes not only the tabernacle but the entire Mosaic 
system. 

In verse 9 Paul tells us the tabernacle was a "figure 
for the time then present." This is another proof 
that the tabernacle was a figurative institution, and in 
verse 11 he shows its antitype. "But Christ being come 
an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and 
more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is 
to say, not of this building." The "greater and more 
perfect tabernacle not made with hands" is the church 
of the living God, which is here clearly shown to be the 
antitype of the tabernacle of Moses. The "good 
things to come" is the Xew Testament system. 

In Heb. 8:2-5 we read: "A minister of the sanctu- 
ary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, 
and not man. For every high priest is ordaiiied to offer 
gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that 
this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were 
on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there 
are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who 
serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, 



96 THE jU':tteu testament. 

as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to 
make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou 
make all things according to the pattern showed to 
thee in the mount." We observe in this that Christ is 
styled "a minister of the sanctuary and of the true 
tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man." 
This language again sets forth the idea that the taber- 
nacle of Moses was typical of the tabernacle pitched by 
the Lord, which I have before shown to be the Isew 
Testament church. Concerning the priests of the Old 
Testament, it is here said that they "serve unto the 
example and shadow of heavenly things." This shows 
all the services of the tabernacle w^orship to be typical 
of the system of heavenly things revealed in the com- 
ing of Christ. 

In Heb. 10:1 we read again concerning the law of 
Moses as follows : "For the law having a shadow of good 
things to come, and not the very image of the things, 
can never with those sacrifices which they offered year 
by year continually make the comers thereunto per- 
fect." You will observe that the apostle here calls the 
law (that is, the entire Mosaic system) "a shadow of 
good things to come." This nails down the proposi- 
tion I am endeavoring to prove, and shows beyond 
the possibility of a doubt that the New Testament is 
scripturally antitypical of the Mosaic system. This is 
one reason why Moses' law is abolished; for types 
always end with their antitypes. 

I will introduce yet one text under the present 



TYPES OF OLD TESTAMEl^T EXPLAIKBD. 97 

heading. **Let no man therefore judge you in meat, 
or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new 
moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of 
things to come; but the body is of Christ." — Col. 
2 :1G, 17. The holydays, the new moons, the sabbaths, 
and the laws respecting eating and drinking contained 
in the Old Testament are here styled "a shadow of 
things to come." This needs no comment to show 
that it is in harmony with the texts I have quoted 
before, and I believe that I have abundantly proved that 
it is scriptural to consider the entire old-law system a 
type of the perfect law of the Lord Jesus Christ. 



THE TYPES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 
EXPLAINED. 



In the last chapter I have shown that the Mosaic 
system was typical of the New Testament; in this I 
desire to take up the institutions, ordinances, and cer- 
emonies of the Old Testament one by one and show 
their antitype in the gospel. I will begin with the 
tabernacle. The plan of the tabernacle was delivered 
unto Moses on mount Sinai, and God was very desirous 
that he should adhere perfectly to the plan he had 
revealed unto him; because he had planned it so as to 
draw a perfect type of the true tabernacle in the New 
Testament dispensation. This is why he cautioned 
Moses to see that he made all things according to the 



08 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

pattern shown to him in the mount. Ex. 25:40; 
Heb. 8:5. 

The plan of the tabernacle is shown in the diagram 
on the opposite page. The tabernacle proper con- 
tained two apartments, the holy place and the most 
holy place; while that inclosure surrounding it was 
called the court of the tabernacle. From the court, 
you will observe, the holy place could be entered, 
but not the most holy place. It could be reached only 
from the holy place. This all has its proper place 
in the type. 

Between the door of the court and the door of the 
holy place, or, in other words, just before the entrance 
into the holy place was the brazen altar. Between 
the brazen altar and the entrance into the holy place 
was the laver. The furniture in the holy place was a 
golden altar (which sat just before the entiance into the 
most holy place), a golden candlestick with seven 
branches, and the table for the showbread. The 
furniture of the most holy 7)lace was simply the ark of 
the covenant (containing the tables of the covenant, 
the golden pot with the manna in it, and Aaron's rod 
that budded), the mercy-seat over the ark, and two 
angels upon the two ends of the mercy-seat, with their 
wings overshadowing it. For a description of the 
tabernacle and its furniture see the twenty-fifth to 
thirtieth chapters of Exodus. 

This is one of the most beautiful types in all the 
Mosaic system. The tabernacle and all its furniture 



COURT. 



HOLY OF HOLIES. 



I 



Ark of the Covenant. 

1 I 



O 
U 



J L 

Golden Altar. 



U 

< 

O 



a: 

O 
u 



-I V 



O Laver. 

Brazen Altar. 



■i V 



TABERNACLE. 



o 

iJ 



TYPES OF OLD TESTAMENT EXPLAINED. 101 

and services typifies the New Testament church. You 
will observe the following couplets connected with the 
tabernacle and its services. First, there were two 
altars, a brazen and a golden altar. Second, there 
were two veils, first veil and second veil. Third, there 
were two orders of priests, priests and high priests. 
The priests were never allowed to enter the most holy 
place; the high priest alone was allowed to enter it 
once a year. All these couplets typify the two states 
of grace in the Xew Testament cimrch. 

The priests never entered the holy place without 
first offering a sacrifice upon the brazen altar, and 
washing their hands and feet in the laver. This was 
to typify the presenting of ourselves to God polluted 
with sin and iniquity for justification, in the New 
Testament dispensation, in which we receive a washing 
of regeneration. Tit. 3:5. As the priest after sacri- 
ficing and washing himself was admissible into the 
holy place, so we when justified freely by God's grace 
are admitted into the church of God, which is typified 
by the tabernacle proper. 

The high priest on atonement-day entered into the 
holiest place to accomplish the services of God, but not 
until after he had sprinkled blood upon the golden 
altar. This was to typify our perfect consecration to 
God for entire sanctification, in which we enter the 
state of perfected holiness. xit the death of Christ, 
we are told, the veil of the temple was rent in twain 
from the top to the bottom. Matt. 27:51. This was 



102 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

to signify that the way was now opened for all to enter 
the true holiest place, which was the antitype of the 
literal holiest place in the tabernacle. 

The court surrounding the tabernacle proper typified 
the state of those who in this present dispensation 
acknowledge the truth of the gospel of Christ and 
those who feel convicted of their sins, etc., who have 
not yet given their hearts to Jesus. There is a real line 
drawn between them and other sinners. They even have 
to suffer persecution sometimes. But they are not in 
the church of God, and the reader will observe in the 
Revelation when the prophet was commanded to mea- 
sure the true tabernacle, the court was to be left out, 
and was not to be measured. See Eev. 11:2. 

The two orders of priests, as we have stated before, 
signified the two classes of believers. The priests 
typified the justified; and the high priests, the sancti- 
fied. The priests were ordained from among the 
Levites, but the high priests were ordained only from 
among the priests, never from among the unordained 
Levites. This foreshadowed the regular order of sal- 
vation in the Xew Testament, that men were first to 
be justified from all actual transgressions and then 
enter the experience of entire sanctification. 

The golden candlestick in the holy place signified 
the light of regeneration. The showbread in the same 
apartment of the tabernacle typified the real spiritual 
food to be obtained under the gospel dispensation by 
those who are truly born of the Spirit. 



TYPES OF OLD TESTAMENT EXPLAINED. 103 

The ark of the covenant in the most holy place was a 
type of the truly sanctified individual in the gospel 
dispensation. It contained the tables of the covenant, 
which typified the sublime fact of the writing of God's 
law within the hearts and minds of those who are 
sanctified in the gospel dispensation. See Heb. 8:10. 
The manna within the ark was a type of the perfect 
food upon which the sanctified are fed. Tne manna 
fell from heaven even as our souls to-day in the sancti- 
fied state are fed with the true spiritual food that 
comes from heaven. Aaron's rod that budded was 
placed in the ark of the covenant to typify the exceed- 
ing fruitfulness of the sanctified state, inasmuch as God 
caused the dead, dry staff to bring forth living fruit. 

The sacrifices and offerings will next claim our atten- 
tion. This includes a part of the Levitical worship. 
They offered sacrifices to God continually. The blood 
of animals was shed annually, monthly, weekly, and 
daily. All this typified the shedding of the precious 
blood of Christ for the redemption of the world. 

Among the other ceremonies performed on the 
annual day of atonement was that respecting the two 
goats, to which I will give special consideration. The 
reader may find a full account of the same in Lev. 
16:5-22. They prepared two young goats for a sin- 
offering for the people. The priests cast lots upon tl e 
two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other for the 
scapegoat. The goat on which the Lord's lot fell was 
offered unto the Lord for the pardoning of the sins of 



104 The better testament. 

the people: the other goat was used for a scapegoat* 
The priest laid his hands upon his head and con- 
fessed over him all the iniquities of the children of 
Israel, then the goat was sent away by a fit man into 
the wilderness to carry away the sins of the people into 
a land not inhabited. In this we have a beautiful type 
of the twofoldness of New Testament justification, 
the pardoning of sins and the taking away of sins. 
Many to-day see nothing in Xew Testament justifica- 
tion but a mere forgiveness of sins, but such can not 
understand the true antitype of the offering of the two 
goats. We will not enter into the full details of New 
Testament justification now, but will explain it fully 
in its proper place. 

We will next consider the wave-offering and the feast 
of Pentecost. The wave-offering consisted of a sheaf 
that was harvested as soon as the grain was ripe, and 
kept until the day after the first sabbath after they had 
harvested the sheaf. On that day it was waved before 
the Lord for a wave-offering.^ It was to represent the 
entire harvest of the children of Isreal. This sheaf 
was a type of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. It was called the first-fruits of their harvest, 
even as Jesus is called ^the first-fruits of them that 
slept. 1 Cor. 15 :20, 23. In the year that Christ was 
crucified it was so ordered that the sheaf was waved on 
the very day that our Lord was raised from the dead ; 
thus it happened that while the priest was waving the 
sheaf before the Lord joy was brought into the world 



fYPES OF OLD l:ESTAMENf EXPLAlXED. 105 

by the glories of its antitype. For an account of the 
wave-offering see Lev. 23:10, 11. 

Seven weeks from the day they wa^ed the sheaf they 
offered a new meat-offering. The instructions in the 
word of God concerning this feast are as follows: 
**And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after 
the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of 
the wave-offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 
even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall 
ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat- 
offering unto the Lord."— Lev. 23:15, 16. The ''fifty 
days" mentioned here is obtained by counting the first 
and last days of that period. It was literally seven 
weeks. The day this new meat-offering was offered, 
they called the day of Pentecost. Pentecost is from 
the Greek word pentekonta^ which means fifty. This 
feast was called Pentecost because it was held just 
fifty days after the waving of the sheaf. The feast of 
Pentecost was typical of the descension of the Holy 
Ghost in the new dispensation, which occurred on the 
very day the feast of Pentecost was held. See the 
second chapter of Acts. 

We now come to the passover. This feast was 
instituted while the Jews were still in Egyptian bon- 
dage, a full account of which is given in the twelfth 
chapter of Exodus. God commanded the Jews that 
each family should slay a lamb of the first year and 
roast it in the fire and eat it with unleavened bread and 
bitter herbs, and should place the blood of the lamb 



106 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

upon the lintels of the door, that when the destroying 
angel which he had decided to send through Egypt 
should see the blood upon the door, he would pass o\ er 
that house and not slay the first-born there as in the 
houses of the Egyptians. The passover was eaten 
every year on the evening of the fourteenth day of the 
first month, and was typical of the death of Christ. 
The bitter herbs that were eaten with the passover 
doubtless typified the bitter persecutions that must be 
suffered by those in the Christian dispensation who 
become partakers of Christ. This feast was called the 
passover because the angel passed over the house that 
had the blood of the lamb upon the lintels of the 
doors. This typified that the wrath of God in the 
day of judgment, would pass over those whose hearts 
were found sprinkled with the blood of Christ. 

The weekly sabbath day was also a beautiful type. 
A careful study of the third and fourth chapters of 
Hebrews reveals that the seventh-day sabbath was a 
type of the true sanctified rest of soul which we enjoy 
in the new dispensation. The fourth and fifth verses 
of the fourth chapter are especially clear on this point. 
I quote them. "For he spake in a certain place of 
the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the 
seventh day from all his works. And in this place 
again, If they shall enter into my rest." The reader 
will observe in what close connection the apostle men- 
tions the rest of God upon the seventh day at crea- 
tion, with the true spiritual rest. His language surely 



THE BETTER TESTA.MEJ^T. 107 

shows that the spiritual rest is the antitype of God's 
rest. A careful study of the entire chapter will sub- 
stantiate this idea. The spiritual rest referred to is 
that blessed rest from all our works enjoyed by the 
sanctified wholly. The rite of circumcision was also a 
beautiful type. It is antityped by the inward circum- 
cision of our hearts in sanctification. Rom. 2:28, 29. 
As the literal circumcision was a restraint from evil in 
the flesh, so the spiritual circumcision is a spiritual 
restraint wrought in the heart by the actual removal 
of "the body of sin," or the "old man." Col. 2:11. 
Many other beautiful lessons might be drawn from the 
types of the Old Testament, but I believe that jus- 
tice to my readers would not allow a tedious considera- 
tion of them in this volume. 



THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 



"By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better 
testament." — Heb. 7:22. The vast volume of truth 
contained in this little verse of scripture can not be 
fathomed in a day. Words could scarcely be framed 
into a sentence that would contain greater volumes of 
thought. It is to this text that this entire volume is 
indebted. My finite mind has for years endeavored to 
descend into the depth of meaning this sentence 
would not have contained had the little word "better" 
been omitted. While I have not been able to compre- 



108 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

hend the depth of the wisdom and love displayed by 
the infinite mind in the forming of the sublime princi- 
ples of the revelation which is called the gospel, I 
have, by the blessing of the Holy Spirit, been enabled 
to penetrate deep enough into the sense of the blessed 
truths contained in this text, to cause my bosom to 
swell with a ''Praise the Lord that it is mine to live 
under the 'Better Testament'!" 

But hark! I hear a voice from the volume of inspira- 
tion saying, "The Sinaitic covenant was glorious." — 
2 Cor. 3 :7. True, and the light of its divine inspira- 
tion dazzled the spiritual vision of the sin-polluted 
Hebrews of its day, but its glory is done away. It has 
been outshined by the testament that exceeds it in 
glory. Verses 8, 9. It has disappeared before the 
brightness of the gospel like the stars before the rays 
of the sun at the dawning of the day. "Even that 
which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, 
by reason of the glory that excelleth." — Verse 10. 

That the New Testament is better than the Old 
would perhaps be acknowledged by every Bible-reader. 
It would therefore seem unnecessary to bring forth any 
proofs on this point. But as there are some sublime 
truths that properly belong under this heading, I 
shall bring them forth. 

The first thought that presents itself for considera- 
tion is that the saints of the Old Testament were con- 
stantly yearning for the ushering in of the l^ew Testa- 
ment dispensation; but the writers of the New 



THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 109 

Testament never once expressed a yearning to have 
lived under the Old Testament. This is inspired proof 
that the New Testament is better than the Old. 

The appellations employed by the prophets to desig- 
nate the character of the Messiah for whom they looked, 
show the idea that they had grasped from the inspira- 
tion of God's Spirit of the victories to be enjoyed in the 
New Testament age. 

The term Immaniiel^ employed by Isaiah when 
speaking of Christ, brings out a sublime truth peculiar 
to the New Testament. "Therefore the Lord himself 
shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, 
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." 
— Isa. 7:14. "And he shall pass through Judah ; he 
shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the 
neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the 
breadth of thy land, Immanuel." — Isa. 8:8. That 
these prophecies relate to Christ is evident from the 
very construction of their language. But we have a 
still stronger proof that this application is correct. 
Inspiration itself applies these prophecies to Christ. 
Matthew when recording the angel's visit to Joseph to 
inform him of the birth of Christ, says, "Now all this 
was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
of the Lord by the prophet, saying. Behold, a virgin 
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and 
they shall call his name Immanuel, which, being inter- 
preted is, God with us."— Matt. 1:22, 23. 

This text not only proves that Immanuel signifies 



110 THE BETTER TESTAMEJ^T. 

Christ, but it tells us the meaning of that wonderful 
word Immanuel — " God ivith us.'^^ An idea is conveyed 
in this expression that was never fully realized by 
God's people in the Old Testament dispensation. It is 
true that we can read of God dwelling in the congre- 
gation of his people in Old Testament times, also of 
prophets speaking as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost; but they never entered into the sublime pres- 
ence of God in which the sanctified of the new dispen- 
sation dwell. 

Jeremiah doubtless understood something of the 
nature of the life in the presence of God to be enjoyed 
in the New Testament dispensation, when he prophe- 
sied that all should know the Lord, from the least of 
them unto the greatest of them. Jer. 31 :34. See also 
Heb. 8:11. 

Paul sets forth the same life in the presence of God 
as superior to the life of Old Testament saints in 
Eom. 10:6-9, which I quote — ''But the righteousness 
which is of faith speaketh on this wise. Say not in 
thine heart. Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to 
bring Christ down from above) ; or. Who shall descend 
into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ from the 
dead). But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, 
even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word 
of faith, which we preach : that if thou shalt confess 
with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in 
thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou 
shalt be saved," 



THE BETTER TESTAMENT. Ill 

It will be seen that Paul here speaks of three faiths. 
A faith which says, *'Who shall ascend into heaven? 
(that is, to bring Christ down from above)." This was 
the faith of the Old Testament saints. From Adam to 
Christ they believed in a Christ who was to come from 
heaven. The next faith he mentions is that which 
saith, ''Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to 
bring up Christ again from the dead)." This was 
the faith of the disciples of Christ while he lay in the 
tomb. They had believed him to be the Messiah, but 
their hopes were blighted by his having been cut off 
suddenly by the wrath of his enemies; and they were 
a deceived class of people, except that Christ could be 
brought up again from the dead. The third faith he 
describes is that which saith, ''The word is nigh thee, 
even in thy mouth, and in thy heart" — the faith of 
the New Testament, which teaches us that if we believe 
in this Christ who is actually present with us, we shall 
be saved. Well might the yearning Isaiah have 
exclaimed, "0 Immanuel!" This expression was a 
mere formal declaration when used by the prophet, but 
we can use it understandingly. Hallelujah! 

I do not desire to lengthen this chapter into tedions- 
ness, so I shall conclude by saying that the New Testa- 
ment is better than the Old in the following respects. 

First, it has a better law. The Old Testament had 
but a part of God's righteous law, while the New 
Testament contains every righteous principle. 

Second, it has a better sacrifice. It not only has a 



112 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

higher standard of law, but better blood, which has 
purchased a greater degree of grace, enabling us to live 
to the better law. 

Third, it has better promises. The law of Moses in 
its weakness dared not to promise the Jews more than 
a mere pardoning of sins, but the promises of the N"ew 
Testament declare the complete abolition of all sin 
out of the heart, by the blood of Christ. 

Fourth, as a natural consequence of these facts, we 
have a better salvation. 

Fifth, we have a better mediator. The Old Testa- 
ment had but a human being for its mediator, and he 
was unsanctified, since holiness of heart could not be 
obtained in his day. But the New Testament has for 
its mediator a divine being, ''the Lord from heaven." 

Sixth, it has a better priesthood than the Old Testa- 
ment, which had a changeable priesthood of carnal 
men; it has a divine priest, and an unchangeable 
priesthood. 

Seventh, as is seen from the foregoing statements, 
the Old Testament people possessed *'a shadow of 
heavenly things," and we who are saved in the new 
dispensation, "the heavenly things themselves." 
Heb. 9:23. 



THE BETTER PROMISES. 



''But now hath he obtained a more excellent minis- 
try, by how much also lie is the ipediator of a better 



THE BETTER PROMISES. 113 

covenant, which was established upon better prom- 
ises." — Heb. 8:6. This text tells us that the New 
Testament is better than the Old because it was estab- 
lished upon better promises. What are the better 
promises upon which the New Testament is estab- 
lished? "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would 
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the 
gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations 
be blessed." — Gal. 3:8. ''Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; 
for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on 
a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might come on 
the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might re- 
ceive the promise of the Spirit through faith." — Verses 
13, 14. These texts show that it is the burden of the 
gospel to fulfill the promises contained in the covenant 
that God made with Abraham before the law of Moses 
was given. The Abrahamic covenant must therefore 
contain the better promises upon which the New Tes- 
tament is founded. This idea is confirmed in verse 17, 
where the apostle shows that the new covenant was 
confirmed in the Abrahamic covenant. I here quote 
it as follows: "And this I say, that the covenant, that 
was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which 
was four hundred and thirty years after, can not dis- 
annul, that it should make the promise of none effect." 

In the Abrahamic covenant God gave three special 
promises. 

/• A numerous seed. ''I will make of thee a great 



114 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

nation." — Gen. 12:2. ' 'I will make my covenant be- 
tween me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly, 
... and thou shall be a father of many nations. . . . 
Thy name shall be called Abraham; for a father of 
many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee 
exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee." 
— Gen. 17:2-6. ''I will make thy seed as the dust of 
the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the 
earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." — Gen. 
13:16. "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, 
if thou be able to number them: and he said unto 
him, So shall thy seed be." — Gen. 15:5. "I will mul- 
tiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the 
sand which is upon the seashore." — Gen. 22:17. 

2. The land of Canaan for an inheritance. '*I will 
give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land 
wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, 
for an everlasting possession." — Gen. 17:18. ''The 
Lord appeared unto Abram, and said. Unto thy seed 
will I give this land."— Gen. 12:7. ''AH the land 
which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed 
forever." — Gen. 13:15. "The Lord made a covenant 
with Abram, saying. Unto thy seed have I given this 
land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the 
river Euphrates." — Gen. 15:18. 

S. A Messing in Abraham'' s seed to come upon all 
nations. "In thee shall all families of the earth be 
blessed." — Gen. 12:3. "Abraham shall surely become 
a great and mighty nation, and all the natioiis of the 



THE BETTER PROMISES. 115 

earth shall be blessed hi him."— Gen. 18:18. ''In thy 
seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed." — Gen. 
22:18. 

The first two of these promises have a twofold ful- 
fillment, a literal fulfillment under the Old Testament, 
and a spiritual fulfillment under the New Testament. 
God raised up unto Abraham a numerous literal seed 
under the law, unto whom he gave the literal land of 
Canaan for an inheritance; and under the gospel he 
has raised up unto him a more numerous seed, unto 
whom he has given the spiritual land of Canaan for an 
inheritance. 

The blessing to come upon all nations, promised in 
the third promise, has an exclusively spiritual fulfill- 
ment under the gospel. 

Upon the two significations of the promises in 
the Abrahamic covenant, the two testaments have been 
founded. Moses established his testament upon the lit- 
eral signification of these promises, and Jesus estab- 
lished his testament upon their spiritual signification. 
The spiritual signification of these promises is better 
than the literal; hence Jesus' testament, as Paul 
has affirmed, is established upon better promises than 
Moses' testament. 

For a literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises 
see Deut. 26:5; 1 Kings 3 :8 ; Josh. 21 :43. I shall not 
enlarge upon the literal fulfillment of these promises, 
because I am to write upon their spiritual fulfillment. 
I shall take up the Abrahamic promises in the order I 



116 TUB BETTER TESTAMENT. 

have enumerated them above and show their true 
spiritual fulfillment under the gospel. 

The numerous seed of Abraham comes first into 
view. The Bible student, in his perusal of sacred 
scripture, will see two Israels. The first mention of 
them in the New Testament is in the eighth chapter 
of John. 

''They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and 
were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, 
Ye shall be made free." — Ver. 33. 

"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to 
kill me, because my word has no place in you." — 
Ver. 37. 

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our 
father. Jesus saith unto them. If ye were Abraham's 
children, ye would do the works of Abraham." — 
Ver. 39. 

The reader will observe that in the 37th verse Jesus 
acknowledges the Jews to be the children of Abraham. 
In the 39th verse he disputes their claim to be the 
children of Abraham. This would be a contradiction 
but for the fact that the Bible teaches two Israels — the 
natural and the spiritual, the seed of flesh and blood 
and the seed of righteousness and faith. A careful 
study of the context will convince the reader that 
JesLis here refers to the two Israels. When he acknowl- 
edged the Jews to be Abraham's seed in verse 37, it 
was upon the ground of natural generation, and when 
he denied in verse 39 their claim to be the children of 



THE BETTER PROMISES. M 

Abraham it was upon the ground of their deficiency 
in faith and righteousness. In this he evidently sets 
forth the two Israels. 

"For circumcicjion verily profiteth, if thou keep the 
law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circum- 
cision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if uncircum- 
cision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his 
uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And 
shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill 
the law, judge thee, w^ho by the letter and circumcision 
dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is 
one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is 
outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew, which is one 
inwardly; and circumcison is that of the heart, in the 
spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of 
men, but of God."— Rom. 2:25-29. 

Here two Israels are again manifestly set forth in the 
figure of the two classes of Jews; the outward Jew and 
he that is a Jew inwardly. The natural seed is signi- 
fied by the outward Jew, and the spiritual seed by him 
who is a Jew inwardly. Also two circumcisions are 
mentioned; the outward circumcision in the flesh, and 
the inward circumcision of the heart. Further com- 
ments are unnecessary to show two Israels here. 

'^And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet 
being uncircumcised : that he might be the father of all 
them that believe, though they be not circumcised; 
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 



118 tttE Better TEsTAMEi^^T. 

and the father of circumcision to them who are not of 
the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps 
of that faith of otir father Abraham, which he had 
being yet uncircumcised: for the promise, that he 
should be the heir of the world, wass not to Abraham, 
or to his seed, through the law, but through the right- 
eousness of faith; for if they which are of the law be 
heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none 
effect. . . . Therefore it is of faith, that it might be 
by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all 
the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to. 
that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the 
father of us all (as it is wriften, I have made thee a 
father of many nations), before him whom he believed, 
even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those 
things which be not as though they were." — Kom. 
4:11-17. 

In this text we have the true Israel plainly set forth. 
It is emphatically stated that God's promise to Abra- 
ham to make him a father of many nations meets its 
fulfillment under the gospel. It is also stated that 
they who are of the law are not heirs, but that the 
promise is of faith, ^Hhat it might be by grace; to the 
end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to 
that only which is of the law." This language shows 
that the true Israel includes more than God's people 
under the law. What other conclusion could we draw 
from Paul's teaching here than that the true Israel, 
unto whom the Abrahainic promises were made, is the 



THE BETTER PROMISES. 119 

host of Christians called out from among the Jews and 
Gentiles in the gospel dispensation? Especially would 
we draw such a conclusion since he has said that "the 
promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was 
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but 
through the righteousness of faith." 

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth 
anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be 
on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." — 
Gal. 6:15, 16. 

In this text again we have the true Israel set forth. 
The apostle states that "neither circumcision availeth 
anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." 
This language shows the conditions for becoming one 
of either of the Israels mentioned in the Bible. 
Through circumcision the Gentiles could become mem- 
bers of the natural Israel in the Old Testament dispen- 
sation; but to become one of the spiritual Israel in the 
present dispensation we must become a new creature. 
The- apostle's declaration that circumcision availeth 
nothing any more proves that the natural Israel is 
entircLy set aside and God knows now only the spiritual 
Israel composed of those who out of every nation 
under heaven accept Christ. This is the true signifi- 
cation of the expression "Israel of God" in the above. 

I have yet one text to bring to bear upon this sub- 
ject. It is Kom. 9:3-8, which reads: "For I could 
wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my 



120 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh : who are 
Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the 
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, 
and the service of God, and the promises ; whose are 
the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ 
came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. !Not 
as though the word of God hath taken none effect. 
For they are not all Israel which are of Israel : neither 
because they are the seed of Abraham are they all 
children : but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That 
is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are 
not the children of God: but the children of the 
promise are counted for the seed." 

In this quotation, Paul is expressing his regret at 
the hardness of the natural Israel to reject the gospel; 
after which he introduces spiritual Israel with the 
words: "Not as though the word of God hath taken 
none effect. For they are not all Israel which are of 
Israel.'^ It would appear that after he had considered 
how the Jews had rejected the gospel, his faith struck 
a new ray of hope in the thought that God was raising 
up a spiritual Israel, composed of both Jews and Gen- 
tiles, in the gospel dispensation. It was to this spirit- 
ual Israel that he referred when he said, "They are not 
all Israel which are of Israel. " To make it still clearer 
he said, "JSTeither, because they are the seed of Abra- 
ham, are they all children.'' Again, "They which are 
the children of the flesh, these are not tJie children of 
God: but the children of the promise are counted for 



THE BETTER PROMISES. 121 

the seed." Can we driiw any other reasonable conclu- 
sion from these words than that the true Israel nnto 
whom the Abrahamic promises are fulfilled, are the 
host of New Testament saints? Additional light on 
how men become Israelites, or children of Abraham in 
the present dispensation, will add further evidences of 
the correctness of our position. 

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; 
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." — 
Gal. 3:16. Here it is unmistakably stated that Christ 
is the seed referred t in the Abrahamic promises. 
Therefore we might consistently argue that none are 
included in tne true seed of Abraham but those who 
are in Christ. This idea is established in verse 29, 
which I quote — "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye 
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 
"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the 
same are the children of Abraham." — Ver. 7. 

I believe that I have now abundantly established my 
position and have overthrown the foolish idea that is 
still propagated by some, that the natural seed of 
Abraham have the special favor of God in the present 
dispensation. They had in the old dispensation, but 
Jesus brought them down on a level with the rest of 
humanity, when he by his death abolished the middle 
wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. From that 
time forth, God has dealt with Jews and Gentiles 
alike. Some are so strong in the belief that the Jews 



122 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

are a favored people to this day, that they expect God 
to exalt them above other nations in the future as 1 ^ 
did in the past. Others are trying to claim special 
favor of God by trying to prove themselves of the 
natural seed ot Abraham, although they be Gentiles. 
This is perfect foolishness. I can not say that God will 
never allow the Jews to go back to their own country, 
but if they do go back they will only be Christians, and 
on an equality with other Christians. 

Having now set forth the true seed of Abraham, I 
shall proceed to explain the second promise in the 
Abrahamic covenant, in which the land of Canaan was 
promised to A braliam and his seed. 

The first thought to be established is that this prom- 
ise had a fulfillment that was never realized by the 
people of God under the Old Testament. The promise 
was that the land of Canaan should be given to Abra- 
ham and his seed; but we are told in Acts 7:5 that 
God gave Abraham none inheritance in the land of 
Canaan, ^*no, not so much as to set his foot on." In 
Heb. 11 :39 Paul tells us that none of the Old Testa- 
ment saints received the fulfillment of this promise. 
God gave the Jews an inheritance in the literal land of 
Canaan, but the fact that the New Testament declares 
he gave the Old Testament saints no inheritance in 
Canaan, proves that the true Canaan referred to in the 
promise is of a spiritual nature. If they had not received 
an inheritance in the literal Canaan, those wh( fool- 
ishly teach that God will still give them a literal inher- 



THfi Bt:TTl:ll PROMISES. 123 

itance in a fancied Millennium would have an argu- 
ment. But as the facts stand their claim is un- 
grounded. 

In Rom. 4:13-16 Paul says concerning the fulfillment 
of this promise: "For the promise, that he should be 
the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his 
seed, through the law, but through the righteousness 
of faith. For if they which be of the law be heirs, 
faith is made void, and the promise made of none 
effect. . . . Therefore it is of faith, that it might be 
by grace." 

We can not misunderstand these words. We are 
plainly told that the promise was not fulfilled under 
thb law, but through the righteousness of faith; that 
is, not to the literal seed under the old covenant, but 
to the spiritual seed under the new covenant. Can 
we fail to see that when God promised the land of 
Canaan to Abraham's seed, he did not refer to the 
li* ral Canaan the Jews possessed, but to some spiritual 
land to be inherited in the gospel dispensation. 

1 ' additional light on this subject, the reader 
might see Heb. 6:12, where it is said that these prom- 
ises are inherited through faith and patience. Also 
in Col. 1:12, the inheritance to be obtained under 
the gospel dispensation is called 'Hhe inheritance of the 
saints in light." In Eph. 1:11 Paul employs such 
language as would convey the idea that the Ephesians 
had obtained the inheritance. These are proofs that 
the promised inheritance is spiritual. If no one 



124 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

inherited the true Canaan under the Old Testament 
and some had already inherited it in Paul's time, and 
knowing that no literal Canaan has been inherited in 
the gospel age, are we not driven to see a spiritual 
Canaan? 

Let us now seek a scriptural explanation of the spir- 
itual promised land. "And now, brethren, I com- 
mend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which 
is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance 
among all them which are sanctified." — Acts 20:32. 

"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness 
to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that 
they may receive fogiveness of sins, and inheritance 
among them which are sanctified by faith that is in 
me."— Acts 26:18. 

In both these texts the reader will observe the plain 
statement that our inheritance is "among them which 
are sanctified." According to this the true promised 
land of Canaan is sanctification. This was the land of 
Canaan that could not be inherited in the old dispen- 
sation. 

If the reader w^ill bear in mind the ideas advanced 
here, it will help him to interpret many prophecies 
that bewilder men's minds. For instance, in Ps. 37:29 
we read: "The righteous shall inherit the land, and 
dwell therein forever." 

"Wait on the Lord, and keep his way, and he shall 
exalt thee to inherit the land." — Ver. 34. 

"When thou criest, let thv companies deliver thee; 



THE BETTER PROMISES. 125 

but the wind shall carry them all away; vanity shall 
take them: but he that putteth his trust in me shall 
possess the land, and shall inherit my holy mountain." 
— Isa. 57:13. 

"Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall 
inherit the land forever, the branch of my planting, 
the work of my hands, that I may be glorified." — Isa. 
60:21. 

Those who have not seen the spiritual Canaan set 
forth in the New Testament, hold that these prophe- 
cies will meet a literal fulfillment in a fancied age to 
come; but the spiritual-minded can readily see that in 
all these texts the land referred to is the spiritual land 
of Canaan — holiness. 

Again, in Ps. 37:9 we read: For evil-doers shall be 
cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall 
inherit the earth." 

*'But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall 
delight themselves in the abundance of peace." — 
Ver. 11. 

"For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the 
earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut 
oflE."— Ver. 22. 

The word "earth" in these texts is from erets^ the 
same word from which "land" is translated in the 
texts previously cited. It should have been translated 
"land" in these texts also; for it refers to the spiritual 
land of Canaan, the same as the former texts. 

In Matt. 5:5 we read: "Blessed are the meek; for 



126 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

they shall inherit the earth." This text does not refer 
to a new earth in a future Millennium, as some affirm. 
The word '^ earth" here is from qe^ a Greek word which 
is used for both land and earthy and should have been 
translated land here to harmonize with the many other 
promises of the same thing; for it refers also to the 
spiritual land of Canaan. 

In Zech. 14:21 we have a mysterious prophecy that 
can be easily explained by the premises I am setting 
forth in this chapter. It is this: "In that day there 
shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the 
Lord of hosts." If we were to iiteralize this prophecy, 
it would cut out of salvation every man who inhabits 
the land of Canaan in the Christian dispensation. 
This would be contrary to the principles of the gfospel; 
for it offers salvation freely to every creature. But if 
we spiritualize it, it has a beautiful signification. The 
literal land of Canaan was a type of the spiritual land, 
just as the wandering of Israel in the wilderness was a 
type of justification; and their Egyptian bondage, the 
sinful state. The conquering of the Canaanites by the 
Israelites when they took possession of that land must 
therefore typify the destruction of the carnal nature 
out of our heart when we enter the state of sanctifica- 
tion. The spiritual import, therefore, of the prophecy 
that no Canaanite should be found in the house of the 
Lord of hosts is that men in the Christian dispensation 
shall receive a cleansing from all imbred depravity. 
AYithout recognizing the true antitypical land of 
Canaan this prophecy is meaningless. 



THE BETTER PROMISES. 127 

We now come to the third promise in the Abrahamic 
covenant — ''In thee shall all families of the earth be 
blessed." It will not take long to explain this bless- 
ing, but we sliall first see the conditions upon which it 
is predicated. "So then they which be of faith are 
blessed with faithful Abraham. "—Gal. 3:9. Faith 
came by Christ (see verse 25) ; therefore the blessing 
promised is obtained in Christ, by faith, as this text 
states. 

I shall next show that the blessing of Abraham was 
not to be confined to the Jews. "Christ hath re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a 
curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that 
hangeth on a tree: that the blessing of Abraham 
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that 
we might receive the promise of the Spirit through 
faith."— Gal. 3:13, 14. Here it is stated that Christ's 
death occurred that the blessing of Abraham might 
come on the Gentiles. This proves my position. 

Observe that the apostle here identifies the blessing 
of Abraham with the promise of the Spirit. This 
conveys the idea that the baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
poured out upon whosoever will receive it, in the 
Christian dispensation is also included in the Abra- 
hamic promise. This thought is substantiated by the 
fact that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is variously 
denominated "the promise of the Father." See Luke 
24:49; Acts 1:4, 5; Acts 2:33. 

For a plain definition of the blessing conferred upon 



128 THE BETTER TESTAMEXT. 

US in Christ we might turn to Acts 3:26 — ''Unto you 
first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to 
bless you, in turning away every one of you from his 
iniquities.'' This is unmistakably plain; God blesses us 
in Christ by turning us away from our iniquities. 
Thus we see that the blessing promised in Abraham 
and bestowed in Christ is salvation from our sins — a 
better grace truly, than was ever promised to those 
who lived under the law of Moses. 

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath 
visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an 
horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant 
David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, 
which have been since the world began; that we should 
be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all 
that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our 
fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath 
which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would 
grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand 
of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holi- 
ness and righteousness before him, all the days of our 
life."— Luke 1:68-75. 

Here Zacharias, on the occasion of John the Baptist's 
birth, shows that the Abrahamic covenant vouchsafed 
for us who come to Christ in the New Testament dis- 
pensation a perfect deliverance from our enemies and 
them that hate us. This prophecy doubtless has the 
same signification as that concerning the Canaanites, 
previously considered, and signifies a perfect cleansing 



THE BETTER SACRIFICE. 129 

from all sin. What immediately follows substantiates 
this interpretation ; for Zacharias proceeds to show that 
in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant is granted 
power to live a life "in holiness and righteousness 
before him all the days of our life." 

I have now shown the true spiritual signification of 
the three promises in the Abrahamic covenant, and it 
might be well to recapitulate, that the entire may be 
refreshed in the reader's mind. 

First. The innumerable seed promised to Abraham 
is the great host of holy people redeemed by the blood 
of Christ in the Christian dispensation. 

Second. The land of Canaan promised to Abraham 
and his seed is the land of holiness inherited in Christ 
in the present dispensation. 

Third. The blessing promised to all the families of 
the earth, in the seed of Abraham, is full salvation 
from all sin, obtained by the application of the atoning 
blood. All hail the better promises! 



THE BETTER SACRIFICE. 



'*It was therefore necessary that the patterns of 
things in the heavens should be purified with these; 
bat the heavenly things themselves with better sac- 
rifices than these." — Heb. 9:23. I have shown in a 
former chapter that the expressions "patterns of 

things in the heavens*" and "the heavenly things them- 

9 



130 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

selves" are designations of the two covenants. In this 
chapter I desire to bring out the thought conveyed in 
the latter part of the verse, which shows that the 
"heavenly things" are purified with better sacrifices 
than the patterns. 

A sacrifice signifies an offering to pay a penalty for 
another. The penalty for sin is death. Gen. 2:17; 
Ezek. 18:4. It must by all means be paid. By a 
sacrifice is understood that God accepts the death of 
another instead of that of the offender. It is in this 
light that we are to view the death of Christ, which 
we have been taught to call the atonement. 

The offering of the blood of Christ is a perfect sacri- 
fice; because it is the blood both of the divine and of 
the human being, of the offended and the offender. 
ISuch must produce a perfect reconciliation between 
the divine and the human beings, and purchase perfect 
favor foi the latter in the sight of the former. 

The offerings under the Old Testament were neither 
divine nor human — the blood of lower animals. 
Hence they could not produce a perfect reconciliation 
between God and man. 

It is not difficult to see m these thoughts why the law 
is said to have been weak. The power of any covenant 
lies in its sacrifices, and as the old covenant had such 
inferior sacrifices it could be expected to purchase for 
man but a limited degree of favor in God's sight. 
The sacrifice of the Xew Testament being perfect, 
that is, the greatest sacrifice that could have been 



THE BETTER SACRIFICE. 131 

offered, has purchased for man the greatest favor con- 
ceivable; hence, the power of the new covenant. 

We read that God had no pleasure in the sacrifices 
of the old covenant. I quote Heb. 10:5-10 — "Where- 
fore when he cometh into the world, he saith. Sacrifice 
and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou 
prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin 
thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come 
(in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do 
thy will, God. Above when he said. Sacrifice and 
offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou 
wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are 
offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy 
will, God. He taketh away the first, that he may 
establish the second. By the which will we are sancti- 
fiid through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
once for all." 

When God tells us that he had no pleasure in the 
blood of animals, even while they were offered in the 
old dispensation, he does not mean to teach us that 
those offerings were not divinely instituted, but that 
they were not sufficient to pay the penalty imposed 
upon man for sin. God was pleased to see his children 
under the old covenant obey his nijunctions to offer the 
sacrifices of animals' blood, but he did not accept it as 
a satisfactory ransom for the human soul. The blood 
of animals in itself is insufficient to constitute an atone- 
ment of any kind, but considering it a type of the blood 
of Christ which was to be offered, God allowed that 



132 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

it sliould purchase a limited degree of favor for man in 
its time. As it only purchased favor for man as a type, 
God bestowed the favor, so to speak, on credit, and the 
favor obtained had to be paid for by the sacrifice of 
the blood of Christ when he came. Hence we read 
that Christ died ''for the redemption of the transgres- 
sions that were under the first testament." — Heb. 9 :1»5. 
But God did not allow the people of the old dispensa- 
tion to obtain perfect salvation on credit. It was not 
until that great sacrifice was offered, which was accept- 
able in the sight of God (Eph. 5:2), that unlimited 
favor could be obtained. 

I have sometimes heard it affirmed that the people 
of the old dispensation obtained full salvation by look- 
ing forward to the coming of Christ and believing in 
him. But this theory is entirely ungrounded in the 
word of God. There is not a text of scripture in the 
Old Testan ent that required men to believe in the 
coming of the Messiah as a condition of salvation. 
John the Baptist was the first to teach salvation by 
faith in Christ. He taught men "that they should 
believe on him which was to come after him, that is, 
on Christ Jesus. "^ — Acts 19:4. But the gospel of 
Christ began with John the Baptist; hence we may 
say that the obtaining of salvation by faith in Christ 
pertains exclusively to the ]N"ew Testament dispensation. 

In the Old Testament dispensation there was but one 
way of obtaining favor with God, and that was by 
using the blood of animals. In Heb, 9:^2 we read; 



THE BETTER SACRIFICE. 133 

''And almost all things are by the law purged with 
blood; and without shedding of blood is no re- 
mission." This plainly states that no man could 
obtain salvation under the old dispensation in any 
other way than by shedding the blood of animals. 
The idea therefore that men in those days looked for- 
ward to the coming of Christ and by faith entered into 
the experience of full salvation, as men do since the 
death of Christ, is unscriptural. As the blood of 
animals was their only means of obtaining favor with 
God, they could in those days obtain but the limited 
degree of salvation that the blood of animals could 
purchase for them. 

But some might ask concerning the Premosaic 
saints, if it were not possible that they could have 
obtained a greater degree of salvation than those who 
lived under the law ot Moses. I answer, No. They 
could do no more than the people under the law. 
We read that they offered their sacrifices regularly, as 
did the worshipers under the law. The offering of the 
blood of animals began in the family of Adam. Gen. 
4:3, 4. Hence it would appear that God himself 
taught the human family the offering of the blood of 
animals in sacrifice for their transgressions at that 
early date. Noah offered the blood of animals in sacri- 
fice unto God. Gen. 8:20. Jacob also and all the 
Premosaic saints of whom we have a scriptural ac- 
count, regularly offered the blood of animals in sacri- 
fice unto God. Some other things were offered some- 



134 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

times in sacrifice unto God, but we are in this chapter 
dealing with only the sacrifice of blood, and indeed it 
only properly has a place among the sin-sacrifices. Ac- 
cording to the instructions that God gave the comfort- 
ers of Job after they had been convicted of sin before 
him, it seems to have been understood in those days 
that the sacrificing of the blood of animals was the 
proper thing to do to obtain pardon for sins. See Job 
42:7-9. Taking all things into consideration we can 
but conclude that from Adam to Christ the only means 
of obtaining pardon was by offering the blood of 
animals; and as it could not purchase full salvation 
from sin, no such salvation could be obtained in 
that age. 

The insufficiency of the blood of animals to atone 
for complete redemption from sin is the principle 
apology for the continual offering of the same. We 
are told in Heb. 10:1, 2 that if the sacrifices of the Old 
Testament had been sufficient to purchase perfect sal- 
vation, they would have ceased to be off ered ; tnat is, 
one sacrifice would have answered for all the people of 
all ages. With this thought we might argue that the 
repetition of the sacrifices of the old covenant itself 
proves them imperfect. 

The offering of the blood of Christ, as has been pre- 
viously stated, was a perfect sacrifice; hence it need 
never be repeated. This is why so much stress is 
placed by inspiration upon the idea of Christ dying 
but once. See Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:9-12. 



THE BETTER SACRIFICE. 135 

Had the sacrifices of the Old Testament been a com- 
plete ransom for the soul, they would still have been 
imperfect. The blood of Christ itself, offered as the 
blood of animals was under the law of Moses, would 
have been an imperfect sacrifice; because the offerings 
of that age purchased favor for but one nation. A 
perfect atonement must reach every human soul. The 
atonement Jesus made is such an atonement, because 
we read: *'That he by the grace of God should taste 
death for every man." — Heb. 2:9. To taste death for 
every man means more than simply to die for all the 
nations living upon the earth at the time the atone- 
ment was made ; it is to taste death for all the human 
creatures in past and future ages as well. 

The atonement has been shamefully abused by those 
who have not understood it. Men have endeavored to 
establish many false doctrines by it. But when prop- 
erly understood the atonement itself refutes all the 
false doctrines that men endeavor to establish by it. 

Nothing more than a scriptural knowledge of the 
atonement is needed to refute the idea of hell redemp- 
tion. To teach that every man must suffer in hell a 
certain length of time according to the wicked deeds 
he has committed is simply to ignore the idea of Christ 
having made provision in the atonement for the can- 
celation of the penalty for sin. So we can not believe 
in the Christian doctiine of the atonement and at the 
same time believe in hell redemption. 

The Universalists endeavor to establish their idea of 



136 THE JBMTEH TESTAMENT. 

universal salvation upon the doctrine of the atone- 
ment. They argue that Christ paid the penalty for 
the sin of all men ; therefore all men will be saved 
unconditionally. The very foundation of this argument 
is false; for Christ did not in his death pay the pen- 
alty for the sin of a single individual independent of 
the individual's faith. It is true that we are saved by 
the blood of Christ, but we are saved also by faith, 
and although the blood has been shed for all men, 
only those who will believe in that atoning blood will 
escape the penalty for sin — death. The atonement 
would therefore be more perfectly stated as follows: 
Christ made provision in his death for every human 
creature to escape the penalty for sin. 

The annihilationists also endeavor to establish their 
heretical doctrine by the doctrine of the atonement. 
They argue that the penalty for sin is not eternal 
death, or Christ in the payment of this penalty should 
have suffered eternal death. This argument is also 
false. It is based upon a misunderstanding of the 
atonement itself. Had Christ been a mere man, he 
should have suffered eternal death, to pay an eternal 
death penalty upon sin for man; and not only so, he 
should have been compelled to suffer eternally to pay 
the penalty upon sin for a single individual, and to 
atone for the world it would have been necessary for 
him to have suffered as many eternal deaths as there 
are individuals in the world. The annihilationists 
seem to have forgotten, or never to have learned, that 



TttE BETTER PRIESTHOOD. 137 

Jesus Christ was a divine being and infinite. An 
infinite being could pay an infinite penalty for an 
infinite number of persons in a moment of time. 

I shall not in this chapter show to what extent men 
could be saved under the sacrifices of the Old Testa- 
ment; that will be brought forth in a later chapter. 



THE BETTER PRIESTHOOD. 



The word priesthood is used in two senses in the 
New Testament. It designates the generation of 
Christians, and also the office of our Savior. In both 
its applications it is to be understood ds antitypical of 
the priesthood of the Old Testament. 

In 1 Pet. 2:5 we read: "Ye also, as lively stones, 
are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to 
offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus 
Christ." It is not hard to see that the holy priesthood 
mentioned liere is the generation of New Testa- 
ment saints. It is called a holy priesthood; hence it 
is a better priesthood than that of the Old Testament, 
lor none of those priests, not even the high priests, 
were truly holy. 

Peter also states here that we as a holy priesthood 
"oflEer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by 
Jesus Christ." This is another feature in which our 
priesthood is better than the Levitical; for the offer- 
ings they offered were not perfectly acceptable unto 
God, as we have previously shown. 



138 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

We read again concerning the Xew Testament priest- 
hood in 1 Pet. 2:9: "But ye are a chosen generation, 
a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; 
that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath 
called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." 
The New Testament priesthood is here called a ''royal 
priesthood"; that is, a kingly priesthood. In this 
expression is conveyed the idea that Christian people 
are both kings and priests unto God. In the book of 
Eevelation these terms are three times applied to the 
children of God. Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6. 

The term king applied to the Christian signifies that 
he is to be his ow^n ruler, or, in other words, a perfect 
ruler over himself. In Old Testament times men 
never received grace to rule themselves perfectly for 
God, but under the Xew Testament, we receive grace 
to subdue every element in our being that is antag- 
onistic to the holiness of God and rule our hearts <ind 
minds perfectly for God. 

The application of the word priest to the Christian 
signifies that he offers his ow^n sacrifice, and does not 
look to another to make his sacrifice for him, as did 
the people of God in the old dispensation. I have 
^^ted before that the word priesthood is applied to the 
children of God in the Xew Testament to signify that 
they are the antitype of the Levitical priesthood. 
This thought I have fully set forth in a former chap- 
ter. I might here make reference to the two orders of 
priests. It might be said that we enter the antitypical 



THE BETTER PRIESTHOOD. 139 

piiosthood in justification and the antitypical high- 
])ri(^sthood in sanctification. 

I shall now consider the application of the term 
priesthood to the ministry of Christ, in which it will be 
scrMi that the two classes of priests in the Levitical 
priesthood typified also two states in the ministry of 
Christ. ''Now of the things which we have spoken 
this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is 
set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in 
the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the 
true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 
For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sac- 
rifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have 
somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he 
should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that 
offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the 
example and shadow of heavenly things." — Heb. 8:1-5. 

The apostle had in the seven previous chapters men- 
tioned a great many beautiful things, but of all these 
he says, the sum is the sublime truths which he had 
set forth concerning the order of the great High Priest 
— Jesus. He states that he sits as high priest on the 
right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 
from whence he ministers to the true sanctuary and 
true tabernacle, which I have before shown to be the 
church of God on earth. But notice that he says, ''If 
he were on earth, he should not be a priest." He 
means to say by these words that if Christ had re- 
mained upon earth he should not have been a high 



140 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

priest; for Christ's high-priesthood is the subject he is 
here discussing, according to the first verse in the 
chapter. The idea he intends to bring forth is that 
Christ's ministry is, as I have already stated, an anti- 
type of the Levitical priesthood; and that Christ 
served in his priesthood while he was administering 
the gospel upon earth; and that he entered his hig^ - 
priesthood when he ascended to the mediatorial thro e 
in heaven. 

Notice also the beautiful thought he brings out in 
verse 3, concerning the offering of gifts and sacrifices. 
He says, ''For every high priest is ordained to offer 
gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity thi.t 
this man have somewhat also to offer." The high 
priest sprinkled blood upon the golden altar which 
stood before the entrance into the most holy plac , 
before he could be admitted into the most holy place : 
so Jesus had to offer a sacrifice of blood before he 
could be admitted into his high-priesthood, or, in 
other words, before he could enter from his pi iesthood 
on earth, which might be calbd the holy place to hiir, 
into his high-priesthood above, which we might cail 
the most holy place to him. This signification of the 
Mosaic tabernacle is sustained by other texts in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, and will be brought out more 
clearly in a later chapter. 

''And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but 
he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ 
glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but 1 e 



THE BETTER PRIESTHOOD. 141 

that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I 
begotten thee. As he saith also in another place. Thou 
art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec. 
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up 
prayers and supplications, with strong crying and 
tears, unto him that was able to save him from deatl^, 
and was heard in that he feared; though he were a 
Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he 
suffered; and being made perfect, he became the 
author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey 
him; called of God an high priest after the order of 
Melchisedec."— Heb. 5:4-10. 

In this text the two states in the ministry of Christ 
are clearly brought forth. It is shown how Christ in the 
days of his flesh (that is, during his incarnation upon 
earth) offered up prayers and supplication with strong 
crying and tears unto him that was able to save him 
from death. Also how he, though he were the Son of 
God, learned obedience by the things which he suffered. 
It is thus that he describes the priesthood of Christ up- 
on earth. Then he proceeds to show that he was made 
perfect, and in being made perfect became the author 
of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. This 
language surely refers to the death of Christ upon the 
cross; for we are told in Heb. 2:10 that he was '^made 
perfect through suffering." And after he was thus 
made perfect the apostle proceeds to show that he was 
"called of God an high priest after the order of Mel- 
chisedec," 



l['l THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

But what must be the signification of the expression 
"after the order of Melchisedec"? It is used twice in 
the foregoing quotation. It is used also in several 
other instances in the book of Hebrews. See Heb. 
6:20 and 7:17. The reader will observe that the apos- 
tle introduces this expression as a quotation from the 
Old Testament; hence, this idea was not original with 
him. If we turn to Ps. 110:4, we find it there prophe- 
sied, "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, 
Thou are a priest forever after the order of Melchise- 
dec." This prophecy of Christ brings out many beau- 
tiful features in the character of his ministry, in 
which it is shown to be far better than the ministry of 
the Old Testament. To bring out the beautiful 
thoughts in this prophecy, the apostle gives us in the 
seventh chapter of Hebrews a description of the priest- 
h )od of Melchisedec. 

"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the 
most high God, who met Abraham returning from 
the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom 
also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by 
interpretation King of righteousness, and after that 
also King of Salem, which is King of peace; without 
father, without mother, without descent, having 
neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made 
like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually. 
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom 
even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the 
spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, 



THE BETTER PRIESTHOOD. 143 

who receive the office of the priesthood, have a com- 
mandment to take tithes of the people according to 
the law; that is, of their brethren, though they come 
out of the loins of Abraham: but he whose descent is 
n )t counted from them received tithes of Abraham, 
an I blessed him that had the promises.". — Verses 1-6. 

The first explanation given here of Melchisedec is that 
the term signified by interpretation, king of righteou^^- 
ness. Next he states that he was king of Salem, which 
is king of peace. Salem is the old name for literal 
Jerusalem; hence Melchisedec was a king of Jerusalem 
in the time of Abraham. As the term Melchisedec 
signified king of righteousness and Salem signified 
peace, we can see hov\^ beautifully these terms apply to 
the character of Christ. 

It is further stated that Melchisedec was 'Svithout 
father, without mother, without descent, having 
neither beginning of days nor eud of life." This lan- 
guage is not intended to teach that Melchisedec was an 
eternal being and really had no father, mother, nor 
descent, for he was a man like other men; but these 
words are understood by those who understand the 
law. The Levites were the priests in the Old Testa- 
ment dispensation; not all the Levites were priests, 
they liad to be ordained to that office, but none but a 
Levite could receive that ordination. Before a priest 
was ordained it was necessary that he prove who his 
father and mother were, and that his descent be traced 
to Levi. This necessitated the Jewish custom of keep- 



144- THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

ing a record of every member of the nation. Melchise- 
dec, who lived in the time of Abraham, 400 years 
before the law of Moses was given, was not required to 
give any such descent in order to be ordained to the 
priesthood. God himself chose him. That these mys- 
terious words refer as I have stated to the counting of 
the descent by the records of the law is verified in 
verse 6, where Melchisedec is called, "He whose de- 
scent is not counted." 

Christ was not ordained a priest after the order of 
Levi, as Paul says in verses 12-16 of the same chapter 
from which I have quoted — "For the priesthood being 
changed, there is made of necessity a change also of 
the law. For he of whom these things are spoken per- 
taineth to another tribe, of which no man gave atten- 
dance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord 
sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake 
nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more 
evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec 
there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the 
law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of 
an endless life." According to this quotation Christ 
came from the tribe of Judah, of which tribe the apos- 
tle says, "Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. " 
Therefore Christ could nob have become a priest after 
the Levitical order, but as the order of Melchisedec 
required no record of descent, he could be made a 
priest after that order. 

"(For those priests were niade without an oath; but 



THE BETTER PRIESTHOOD. 145 

this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord 
sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever 
after the order of Melchisedec.)" Here we havo 
another contrast drawn between the Levitical order a d 
the order of Melchisedec. The priests of the former 
were consecrated without an oath, while Christ who is 
of the latter was consecrated by an oath. In this also 
the priesthood of Christ is superior to that of the Old 
Testament. 

"And they truly were many priests, becaase they 
were not suffered to continue by reason of death : but 
this man, because he continueth ever, hath an un- 
changeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to 
save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, 
seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." 
— Yerses 23-25. These verses show us that the priest- 
hood of the Old Testament was a changeable priest- 
hood; because death was constantly removing the 
priests, and others were ordained to fill their places ; 
but the priesthood of Christ is declared to be un- 
changeable; because he ever liveth. In this again the 
priesthood of Christ is better than the Levitical priest- 
hood, and the apostle affirms this as the grounds upon 
which Jesus is able to save them to the uttermost that 
come unto God by him, 

''For such an high priest became us, who is holy, 
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made 
higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as 
thps^ high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own 



146 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, 
when he offered up himself." — Verses 26, 27. Christ 
our high priest is here said to be holy, harmless, unde- 
filed, and separate from sinners. In this he is a better 
high priest than any under the Old Testament; for 
none of them as I have before stated were truly holy. 
On these grounds the apostle affirms that Christ needed 
not to offer up sacrifices daily as did the high priests 
of the Levitical order, bat after offering one perfect 
sacrifice, he forever needed not to offer another sacri- 
fice for our sins. 

These are surely abundant proofs that the New Tes- 
tament priesthood is better than that of the Old Tes- 
tament. 



SPIKITUAL SACRIFICES. 



''Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual 
house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." — 
1 Pet. 2:5. The entire church of God, under 
the New Testament, is here denominated an holy 
priesthood. This signifies that under the New Testa- 
ment, every child of God is his own priest, to offer his 
own sacrifice unto God, and not as under the law to 
have another sacrifice for him. The sacrifices we offer 
unto God are different from those offered by the Levit- 
ical priesthood. They pffered literal sacrifices, while 



SPIRITUAL SACRIFICES. 147 

we, rts the text before us asserts, offer unto God spirit- 
ual sacrifices. 

The spiritual sacrifices we now offer were predicted 
bj the prophets. Malachi prophesied, saying, "From 
the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the 
same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and 
in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, 
and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among 
the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts." — Mai. 1:11. 
This text must be interpreted in a spiritual sense; 
because it relates to the sacrifices of the Xew Testa- 
ment. It shows that the spiritual sacrifices, in the 
new dispensation, would be off'ered in every place, even 
from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the 
same, and not, as under the law, in a particular 
locality only. 

In another place Malachi prophesies concerning the 
coming of Christ, as follows: "He shall sit as a refiner 
and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of 
Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may 
offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." — 
Mai. 3:3. The sons of Levi were the tribe from which 
the priests were chosen in Old Testament times, but as 
this text relates to the new dispensation and as all are 
priests in this dispensation, the sons of Levi men- 
tioned here constitute the entire host of Christians. 
They were to be purified and purged as gold and silver, 
that they might offer unto the Lord an offering in right- 
eousness. Thi? purging is wrought by the blood of 



118 THE BETTER TESTAMEXT. 

Jesus Christ in every heart that receives New Testa- 
ment salvation, and is the only preparation necessary 
to qualify us to officiate in the spiritual priesthood 
of the new dispensation. 

The offerings of the Old Testament were, generally 
speaking, sin-offerings. Such offerings were under the 
law offered daily, bat the sacrifices of the New Testa- 
ment, as shown by the prophecies 1 have quoted, are 
offerings in righteousness; that is, offerings offered 
unto God in a righteous life. Paul in his epistles gives 
us a clear explanation of the spiritual sacrifices offered 
under the New Testament. In Heb. 13:15, 16 he 
says: *'By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of 
praise to God continually; that is, the fruit of our lips, 
giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to 
communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God 
is well pleased." According to this text, the sacrifice 
we are to offer unto God is doing good; that is, a holy 
life before God, communicating, or giving, and offer- 
ing our praises unto God, the fruit of our lips. 

God was never perfectly satisfied with the literal 
offerings of the Old Testament. The prophet Samuel 
once said unto king Saul, ''Hath the Lord as great 
delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying 
the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than 
sacrifice, and to harken than the fat of rams." — 1 
Sam. 15:22. These words show that Samuel under- 
stood that God cared more about people living a 
righteous life before him than he did for the offering 



SPIRITUAL SACRIFICES. 149 

of the literal sacrifices tjiat were offered in his day. 

In Ps. 40:6 David says unto the Lord: ''Sacrifice 
and offerings thou didst not desire; . . . burnt offer- 
ing and sin-offering hast thou not required."' 

In this text God expresses dissatisfaction with the 
literal sacrifices of the Old Testament. It was proper 
that men should have offered such sacrifices in that 
time, and God does not mean to teach in these texts 
that it was not; he is only showing that such sacri- 
fices are not perfectly satisfactory unto him. 

In Hosea6:6 we read: "For I desire mercy, and 
not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than 
burnt offerings." Jesus quoted this prophecy in the 
New Testament — "But go ye and learn what that 
meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I 
am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to 
repentance." — Matt. 9:13. "But if ye had Known 
what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacri- 
fice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." — 
Matt. 12:7. 

In these texts we have additional proof that even 
while the Old Testament sacrifices were being offered, 
God was not perfectly satisfied with them. It was 
always his desire that his people should offer unto him 
a holy life, but as they were not enabled to do this 
under the law, the blood of animals was the best sacri- 
fice that they had to offer unto God; hence God 
accepted thooC who made such offerings. 

While God was not satisfiod w'tli the literal offerings 



150 1:he better testament. 

of the Old Testament, he is perfectl) satisfied with the 
spiritual offerings we now offer, and he says so in his 
word. Malachi in speaking of the offerings of the new 
dispensation says, "Then shall the offering of Jndah 
and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord." — ^lal. 3:4:. 
Peter says the spiritual offerings we now offer are 
acceptable unto God. 1 Pet. 2:5. Again, Paul says, 
after commanding us not to forget to do good and to 
communicate, "With such sacrifices God is well 
pleased. "—Heb. 13:16. 

As has been stated before, the sacrifices of the Old 
Testament were, generally speaking, sin-offerings. 
Since under the Old Testament men did not obtain 
grace to live sinless lives, the sin-offering had to be 
offered at intervals continually; hence, under the offer- 
ing of these sin-offerings, the people led a life of con- 
tinual sinning and repenting. The offering of the 
sin-offering ceased with the death of Jesus Christ, who 
then became the great sin offering for every human 
creature. ISince that time there is no daily sin-offering 
to be offered. The death of Christ has purchased for 
us a salvation which enables us to live continually 
without committing sin; hence under the Xew Testa- 
ment, the righteous people need no repentance. Luke 
15:7. Eepentance is not now to be repeated at inter- 
vals as under the offering of the Old Testament sin- 
offerings, but under the ISTew Testament all who live to 
their privileges, live without committing sin, and offer 
unto the Lord, continually, only the sacrifice of a holy 
life. 



*HE BETTER SALVATION. I6l 

As a proof that the sin-offerings are no longer to be 
offered since the New Testament has been given, I 
would refer to the words of Paul, who, after he had 
quoted a prophecy from the thirty-first chapter of 
Jeremiah, in which the prophet foretold that under 
the new covenant there would be no longer a remem- 
brance of sins, adds: *^Now where remission of these 
is, there is.no more offering for sin." — Heb. 10:18. 

Holiness-opposers do not comprehend the spiritual 
sacrifices that true Christians offer under the gospel; 
they hold that no man can live free from committing 
sin, and that all must lead a life of continual sinning 
and repenting. In this they are setting forth, in prin- 
ciple, the very sin-offering system of Moses' law, which 
went out of force nearly two thousand years ago. 



THE BETTER SALVATION. 



That a better salvation is obtainable under the new 
covenant than was received under the old, would per- 
haps be perceived by the reader from the sentiments of 
the foregoing chapters. We have seen that we have a 
better testament, better promises, and a better sacrifice. 
C-^^ild we fail to adduce the belief from these senti- 
ment* "^^at a closer walk with God, and a better salva- 
tion is offersi'^^ "^ the gospel than was obtainable under 
the Sinai tic codx>^ 

Should any of the rr^-^^rs of this volume fail to 



152 tHi: BETTER TESTAMENT. 

descend into the truths that I have already laid dowrl 
and prefer to stand upon their former religious train- 
ing, they will doubtless take a stand against my posi- 
tion in this chapter; because the world of professing 
Christians believes that such men as Enoch, Noah, 
Abraham, Job, Moses, Joseph, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, 
and the entire train of patriarctis and prophe:s ob- 
tained greater favor, and enjoyed a closer walk with 
God, and a better salvation than we can now obtain. 

The masses are not to be blamed for such a faith; 
because they have learned it from the pulpits. A 
large percentage of the sermons preached to-day are 
drawn from the Old Testament. The preachers spend 
more time lauding Old Testament characters than they 
devote to the demonstration of the glorious privileges of 
the people in the New Testament dispensation. The lis 
tener in his pew is led to believe that the time is past 
in which mortals may live perfect lives, and wishes his 
life had been contemporary with Abraham or Job, that 
his soul might also have enjoyed the blessedness of 
those good old Bible times. Both the preacher and 
his congregation are under a gross deception in regard 
to this matter. We are living in the New Testament 
dispensation, which is the best of all Bible times, and 
in no previous age did heaven smile upon mankind as 
in the current one. 

I shall now bring forth the proofs of the position I 
maintain in this chapter. In Luke 10:21-24 we read: 
*'In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spiiit, and said, I 



THE BETTER SALVATIO:^!. 153 

thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that 
thou hast hid these things^ from the wise and prudent, 
and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; 
for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are 
delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth 
who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father 
is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal 
him. And he turned him unto his disciples, and said 
privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things 
that ye see : for I tell you, that many prophets and kings 
have desired to see those things which ye see, and have 
not seen them; and to hear those things which ye 
hear, and have not heard them." 

Again, in Matt. 13:17 we read: "For verily I say 
unto you. That many prophets and righteous men have 
desired to see those things which ye see, and have not 
seen them ; and to hear those things which ye hear, 
and have not heard them." 

In these verses it is plainly taught by our Savior that 
he was making known to the world things that were 
never understood by any of the kings, wise men, pru- 
dent men, righteous men, or prophets of the old 
dispensation. He thanked his Father that they were 
not understood by any before his day. He also states 
that these Old Testament cliaracters desired to see and 
hear these things, but never saw nor heard them. 

What were the things the prophets and saints under 
the Old Testament desired to see and hear? ^Ye will 
call upon the apostle Peter for an explanation. ''Ee- 



164 THE BETTER TESTAMEl^T. 

ceiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of 
your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have 
inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of 
the grace that should come unto you: searching what, 
or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was 
in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the 
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should fol- 
low." — 1 Pet. 1:9-11. This text surely explains to us 
what the Old Testament prophets and saints were con- 
stantly desiring and seeking after; namely, the great 
salvation that is offered unto us since the suffering of 
Christ. The principles therefore of this great salva- 
tion must be the things that Jesus referred to when he 
stated that he was declaring unto his apostles things 
that many prophets and wise and prudent men of the 
old dispensation had desired to see and hear, and had 
not seen and heard. 

The writings of the prophets themselves confirm the 
idea that salvation was the crowning feature of the 
glories for which the saints of old yearned and waited 
in the old dispensation. "He will save us." — Isa. 
33:22. ''He will come and save you." — Isa. 35:4. 
''1 have longed for thy salvation, Lord." — Ps. 119: 
174. A great many texts might be added to this list, 
but these are sufficient to show that a great salvation 
was expected by the people of the old dispensation 
when the Messiah should come. They harmonizQ with 
the text I have quoted from Peter, and confirm t^ ** 
idea that the principles of this salvation are t!\^ r*^^ 



THE BETTER SALVATION. 165 

things declared by Jesus that were never seen nor 
heard by Old Testament saints. The fact that they 
expected a salvation at the coming of Christ proves 
that they did not possess a perfect salvation. If they 
had possessed a perfect salvation, they would not have 
looked for a salvation in the new dispensation. If 
they therefore did not possess a perfect salvation, the 
perfect salvation now possessed by us in the new dis- 
pensation is a better salvation than that possessed in 
the old dispensation. 

I shall now give further proofs from the writings of 
Paul. "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that 
are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of 
the princes of this world, that come to naught: bat we 
speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden 
tvisdom^ which God ordained before the world unto our 
glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: 
for had they known it, they would not have crucified 
the Lord of glory. But as it is written. Eye hath not 
seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart 
of man, the things which God hath prepared for them 
that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us 
by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, 
the deep things of God."— 1 Cor. 2:6-10. The hidden 
wisdom of which Paul here speaks is identical with 
the hidden things that Jesus made known in the texts 
previously considered. 

For an explanation of this true wisdom we might 
turn to Jas. 3:17 — "But the wisdom that is from above 



156 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be 
entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without par- 
tiality, and without hypocrisy." James would not 
have explained this wisdom differently if he had called 
it salvation. He shows that it includes purity, peacea- 
bleness, gentleness, submissiveness, mercifulness, and 
good fruits; and that it excludes partiality and hypoc- 
risy. All spiritual people understand this to be a 
delineation of the characteristics of salvation. I there- 
fore, unmistakably, hold this to be an explanation of 
the true wisdom which Paul says he preached. 

Paul also states that none of the princes of this world 
knew this hidden wisdom ; and affirms that if they had 
known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of 
glory. The "princes of this world" are identical with 
the kings, wise men, prudent men, etc., whom Christ 
affirms did not know the hidden things which he 
declared. 

To prove that none in the old dispensation had 
known this pure wisdom, the apostle quotes from Isa. 
64:4, that part of his text which reads: "Eye hath not 
seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart 
of man, the things which God hath prepared for them 
that love him." Many have applied these words to 
something to be possessed after we have reached 
heaven, but the apostle here applies them to the great 
salvation to be enjoyed under the New Testament, and 
shows that none in the old dispensation possessed it. 

After he has by this quotation proved that none of 



THE BETTER SALVATIOl^. 167 

the Old Testament saints had attained to this great 
New Testament salvation, he proceeds to say, ''But 
God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit." Praise 
God! the great salvation longed for by the saints of 
old is now obtainable in Christ Jesas. 

As a further proof that the hidden wisdom which we 
have just been considering is salvation, let us intro- 
duce 1 Cor. 1:21 — "For after that in the wisdom of 
God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased 
God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that 
believe." The time here referred to, in which the 
world by wisdom knew not God, was the old dispensa- 
tion. The greatest wisdom man obtained in that age, 
did not light him to that hidden wisdom, full salvatioi . 
But when the appointed time came, God through tl e 
foolishness of preaching, and chiefly through unlearned 
instruments, explained this great wisdom of heaven 
unto man. 

I do not wish to be understood to take the stand 
that no salvation was received in the old dispensation. 
They received some favor with God (the extent of 
which will be explained in a later chapter), but I 
believe the reader is convinced that they never obtained 
the full salvation now offered under the New Testa- 
ment. 

We will now turn to Matt. 13:34, 35— ''All these 
things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; 
and without a parable spake he not unto them: that it 
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, 



158 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter 
things which have been kept secret from the founda- 
tion of the world." It is here stated that Jesus by 
means of parables uttered things that had been kept 
secret from the foundation of the world. The princi- 
pal thing that was hidden from the crc ation of the 
world till the coming of Christ, is the state of perfect 
holiness. It was not enjoyed by any after the fall till 
the blood of Christ was shed. 

As a further proof that we have a better salvation, I 
refer to the fact that those who die in sin in the new 
dispensation are threatened with greater damnation 
than those w^ho died under condemnation in the old 
dispensation. 

"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy 
under tw^o or three witnesses: of how much sorer pun- 
ishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, w^ho 
hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath 
counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith ne was 
sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto 
the Spirit of grace."— Heb. 10:28, 29. 

''See that ye refuse not him that speaketh: for if 
they escaped not who refused him that spake on 
earth, much more shall not we escape if we turn away 
from him that speaketh from heaven." — Heb. 12:25. 

That ? greater damnation is to be administered to 
those who reject Christ than is to be suffered by those 
who rejected Moses is so plainly stated in the first of 
these last two quotations, that comments are entirely 



THE BETTER SALVATION. 150 

uunecessary. It simply states that the New Testa- 
ment sinners are to receive "how much sorer puni^^h- 
ment." In the second quotation the mediators of the 
two covenants are referred to. Moses is the one who 
spoke on earth; Christ, the one who speaks from 
heaven ; and the language of the text conveys the idea 
that those who reject him that speaks from heaven are 
to suffer the greater condemnation. If upon those who 
transgress against the Xew Testament there is to be 
inflicted a greater degree of punishment than upon 
those who transgressed against the Old Testament, it 
must be because they reject greater privileges. If we 
acknowledge that we have greater privileges under the 
New Testament than was offered by the Old Testa- 
ment, we must acknowledge that a better salv^ation is 
obtainable; for ''better privileges" implies a ''better 
salvation." 

In the eleventh chapter of Hebrews there is a more 
striking proof of my position than I have hitherto 
cited. This chapter contains Paul's great dissertation 
on faith. Throughout the chapter the saints who 
spent their lives before the ushering in of the Christian 
dispensation are held up as examples of faith unto us. 
The lesson begins with a reference to the faith of 
Abel, in verse 4. Next we are reminded of Enoch, 
ftnd what he achieved through faith, in verse 5. Then 
the faith of Noah is mentioned in verse 7. Then the 
faith of Abraham and Sara is referred to in verses 8-11. 
Then the apoKStle concludes his description of the. 



160 THE BETTER TESTAME]^T. 

faith of the patriarchs by saying, ^' These all died in 
faith, not having received the promises, but having 
seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and 
embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers 
and pilgrims on the earth." — Verse 13. 

The promises mentioned here are those given unto 
Abraham, which I have shov/n to be our heavenly 
Father's pledge to grant unto us through Christ a 
perfect victory over sin. These promises, we are told, 
were not received by the patriarchs, but they having 
seen them afar off embraced them, and confessed 
themselves strangers and pilgrims upon the earth. 
Nothing is plainer than the fact set forth in this text, 
that the patriarchs did not possess this glorious salva- 
tion from sin now offered to the world in the gospel 
of Christ. Xew Testament saints do. not confess 
themselves strangers and pilgrims upon the earth, but 
they are instructed to say. We ''are no more stran- 
gers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the 
saints, and of the household of God." — Eph. 2:1^. 

The apostle continues in the remainder of the elev- 
enth of Hebrews to consider the state of the saints of 
the Mosaic dispensation. Lifting them up, as he did 
the patriarchs in the first thirteen verses, as examples 
of faith unto us, he begins with Abraham in verses 
17-19; then Isaac is mentioned (verse 20), then J;:^ 
(verse 21), Joseph (verse 22), Moses (verses 23-2> ' 
entire nation of Israel crossing the Red Sea (ver.- 
the conquering of Jericho by Israel'^ PiTmies (verse o ,.. 
the harlot' R§hab (verse 31). 



THE BETTER SALVATIOK. 101 

**And what shall I more say? for the time would fail 
me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, 
and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of 
the prophets." — Ver. 32. These words show very 
clearly that while all the prophets and saints of the 
Mosaic dispensation are not mentioned in the chapter 
under consideration, they are included; therefore, 
whatsoever shall be said concerning them in the re- 
mainder of the chapter applies to every Old Testament 
saint. 

As time would not permit the apostle to detail the 
mighty works of faith wrought by all the loyal saints 
of the old dispensation, he proceeds to sum them up 
as follows: "Who through faith subdued kingdoms, 
wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped 
the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, 
escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were 
made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight 
the armies of the aliens. Women received their 
dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, 
not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain 
a better resurrection: and others had trial of cruel 
mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds 
and imprisonments: they were stoned, they were 
sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the 
sword : they wandered about in sheepskins and goat- 
skins; being destitute, afilicted, tormented, (of whom 
the world was not worthy): they wandered in deserts, 
and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth." 
—Verses 33-38. 



162 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

After all these mighty achievements through faith 
none of these Old Testament characters knew the real- 
ities of a perfect salvation from sin ; for the apostle 
concludes his brief account of them with the words: 
"And these all, having obtained a good report through 
faith, received not the promise, God having provided 
some better thing for us, that they without us should 
not be made perfect." — Verses 39, 40. The promise 
Avhich the Old Testament saints did not receive was the 
glorious blessings of full salvation included in God's 
promise to Abraham (explained in a previous chapter), 
yearned for by Old Testament saints, predicted by the 
prophets, purchased by our Savior's death, and pos- 
sessed by "us which are saved" in the present all-glori- 
ous dispensation of the gospel. Such is the "better 
thing" God has provided for us. 

"Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed 
to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we 
should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels 
was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience 
received a just recompense of reward; how shall we 
escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the 
first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was con- 
firmed unto us by them that heard him?" — Heb. 2:1-3. 



THE BETTER SALVATIOX EXPLAINED. 



"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all accep- 
tation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save 
sinners; of whom I am chief." — 1 Tim. 1:15. 



THE BETTER SALVATI0:N^ EXPLAINED. 163 

"The Son of man is come to seek and to save that 
which was lost." — Luke 19:10. 

"God sent not his Son into the world to condemn 
the world; but that the world through him might be 
saved." — Jno. 3:17. 

"I came not to judge the world, but to save the 
world."— Jno. 12:47. 

These texts declare that Christ's first coming to 
this world was a mission of salvation. He came to 
save sinners. "Save" means to rescue or deliver; 
therefore Christ came into the world to deliver sinners. 
There is no deliverance except it be from something. 
Therefore Christ Jesus came into the world to deliver 
sinners from something. It might be asked, What is 
it that Christ came into the world to deliver sinners 
from? This question might be followed by another: 
What is it that a sinner needs to be saved from? He 
is certainly in some danger or has something about 
him of a damning nature or the Bible would not speak 
of his need of salvation. There is but one thing about 
a sinner that he needs to be saved from; namely, his 
sin. It is foreign to the human nature, and will 
destroy his soul in hell. But every other moral 
element the sinner can take with him to heaven. Sin, 
therefore, being the only thing from which the sinner 
needs to be saved must be that from which the Savior 
came to save him. This is logical reasoning, and I 
shall proceed to show that it is verified in the word 
of God, 



164 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

First. The prophets looked for a Savior who should 
save them from their sins. ''Seventy weeks are deter- 
mined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to 
finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, 
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring 
in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision 
and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy." — Dan. 
9 :24. The reconciliation for iniquity mentioned here is 
the atonement, and Daniel shows that it should finish 
the transgression, make an end of sins, and bring in 
everlasting righteousness. These expressions show 
that Daniel looked for a salvation in the death of 
Christ that would save men from their sins. Such a 
salvation was not known in Daniel's time, but God 
revealed to him that it should be brought to the world 
by the Messias, who should come and die for the 
people. 

''In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the 
house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for 
sin and for uncleanness." — Zech. 13:1. The fountain 
that was to be opened for sin and uncleanness is the 
fountain of Jesus' blood. Since that fountain has 
been opened, all who will wash in its cleansing stream 
are delivered from their sins. Other texts might be 
quoted from the prophets, but these are sufficient to 
show that they expected a salvation in Christ that 
would deliver them completely from their sins. 

Let us now come to the gospels and find out if the 
Christ who has come is the same as that Christ for 



THE BETTER SALVATION EXPLAINED. 165 

whom the prophets looked. The angel said to Joseph, 
concerning the birth of Christ by his wife, '*She shall 
bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; 
for he shall save his people from their sins." — Matt. 
1:21. John the Baptist once pointed Jesus out to his 
congregation with the words, "Behold the Lamb of God, 
which taketh aw^ay the sin of the world." — Jno. 1:29. 
These texts show that Christ came into the world for 
the express purpose of taking away the sins of men. 
This is in perfect harmony with what the prophets had 
foretold concerning him. 

The epistles also unite to tell us that Christ came to 
save us from our sins. Paul says in Heb. 9:26, "Now 
once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put 
away sin by the sacrifice of himself." John says, 
"And ye know that he was manifested to take away 
our sins." — 1 Jno. 3:5. Again he says, "For this 
purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might 
destroy the works of the devil." — Vex. 8. The reader 
can see from the texts quoted that the uniform voice of 
the Bible is that Christ's mission to this world is to 
save men from their sins. 

As a further proof it might be observed that the 
Eevelator professes to have obtained this salvation 
from sins. He ascribes glory "unto him that loved us, 
and washed us from our sins in his own blood." — Rev. 
1 :5. Such is the testimony of one who has been 
washed in that fountain that was opened for sin and 
for uncleanness. 



166 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

This fountain contains efficacy to cleanse the heart 
from every iota of sin. John tells us that "the blood 
of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." — 
1 Jno. 1 :7. Such is the better salvation that is ob- 
tained under the New Testament. 

There are many to-day who deny that we can be 
saved from all sin while in this world ; yet they profess 
to have been saved by Christ. Such I would ask to 
state what they have been saved from. Since there is 
no salvation except we be saved from something, and 
there is nothing to be saved from but sin, and Christ 
came to save us from nothing but sin, we must be 
saved from sin or we are not saved at all. 



BEARING THE CROSS. 



This heading is one that will indeed sound familiar 
to the reader, since we have all from our infancy 
heard about bearing the cross for Christ. I have for 
some time been under the conviction that the tradi- 
tional interpretation of bearing the cross is not the true 
idea our Savior meant to convey by these words. 

Before I comment, I shall insert all the texts that 
record Jesus' teaching concerning bearing the cross. 

"He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after 
me, is not worthy of me." — Matt. 10:38. 

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will 
come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his 
cross, and follow me." — Matt. 16:24. 



BEARING THE CROSS. 167 

*'And when he had called the people unto him with 
his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever shall 
come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his 
cross, and follow me." — Mark 8:34. 

"Then Jesus beholding him, loved him, and said 
unto him. One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell 
whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou 
shalt have treasure in heaven : and come, take up the 
cross, and follow me." — Mark 10:21. 

"And he said unto them all. If any man will come 
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross 
daily, and follow me." — Luke 9:23. 

"And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come 
after me, can not be my disciple." — Luke 14:27. 

These are all the texts that record our Lord's teach- 
ing concerning bearing the cross. 

The traditional understanding of these texts is that 
they relate to the performance of the daily duties of a 
Christian. It has always been difficult for me to 
endorse this idea; for never since I have been saved, 
could I see why the pleasant duties of a Christian should 
be compared to the bearing of a cross. It has always 
been my testimony that it is no cross to serve the 
Lord, if "cross" signifies a burden. If we study care- 
fully all the texts quoted above, I believe we shall, 
every one, be led to see that our Savior made no refer- 
ence to the pleasant duties of a Christian, when he 
spoke of bearing the cross. 

It is very apparent from the inspired writings that 



l68 THiS BETTER TESTAMENT. 

every time Jesus spoke of bearing the cross he was 
addressing sinners, and laying down the conditions 
upon which they might become his disciples. Notice 
especially the words of Luke 14:27 — *' Whosoever doth 
not bear his cross, . . . can not be my disciple." If, 
therefore, the Savior makes the bearing of the cross a 
condition of becoming his disciple, the traditional 
Interpretation of this expression is erroneous. 

"Bear the cross" is an ancient expression which, like 
others, can only be interpreted by an understanding of 
its origin. In the time of our Savior it was the cus- 
tom of the Eoman government, which at that time 
swayed the scepter over the Jews' country, to exP' iite 
certain kinds of criminals by the cruel process cuiied 
crucifixion. This was done by nailing the hands of 
the criminal to the two arms of a cross and his feet to 
the foot, while he was alive, and leaving him suspended 
there in pain until life was ex:tinct The criminal who 
was consigned to such an execution was compelled on 
execution day to carry the cross upon which he was to 
die to the place of execution. Our Savior suffered 
death in this cruel manner, and in accordance with the 
custom of the times was compelled to bear his own 
cross. See John 19:17. The custom of compelling 
the convict to bear his own cross gave rise to the 
expression we have under consideration, which, in the 
time of our Savior, meant the same as "going to the 
gallows" in our time. 

Jesus when he commanded his followers to bear the 



BEAKING THE CROSS. 169 

cross meant to convey the idea that was signified by 
that expression in his time, only he made a spiritual 
application of it. He meant that just as he was com- 
pelled to bear his cross to the place of execution and 
be executed upon it literally, to become the Savior of 
the world, so we must carry our cross to the place of 
execution in a spiritual sense, and die a spiritual death 
upon it to become his disciples. The context will bear 
me out in this interpretation. I will again quote one 
of the texts in which the Savior teaches us that we 
mast bear our cross, with the words of the verse that 
immediately follows: ''If any man will come after me, 
let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow 
me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and 
whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." 
— Matt. 16:24, 25. It is not hard to see that Jesus 
here associates death with the idea of bearing the 
cross, but what death? Not the literal death; because 
it is not true that a man will save his spiritual life by 
losing his natural life. Neither can the bearing of 
the cross refer to the giving up of our literal life, in 
the sense that we become willing to die literally for 
Christ; because Jesus distinguishes between this and 
bearing the cross in Luke 14:26, 27. The Savior refers 
to a spiritual death of the sinful life, and is teaching 
that whosoever will lose his life of sin will find eternal 
life at God's right hand; and that whosoever will 
refuse to die to his sins will lose his eternal, spiritual 
life at God's right hand. All except two of the texts 



170 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

in the gospel that speak of bearing the cross are fol- 
lowed by the same words that follow the one I have 
quoted here, and those two reveal nothing in their 
contexts to the contrary; so beyond doubt the bearing 
of the cross taught by our Savior refers to the spiritual 
death that men must die to become Christians. 

The wording of Luke 9:23 seems to contradict this 
interpretation of bearing the cross. , It says we are to 
take up our cross daily, and it would hardly seem 
reasonable that Jesus taught us to die to sin every day. 
But there are good reasons for believing that the 
word ''daily" in this verse is an interpolation. We 
have both internal and external evidences that it is. 
The contexts show that Matt. 16:24 and Mark 8:34 
record the identical words spoken on the identical 
occasion of Luke 9:23, and neither of them contain 
the word "daily." This is an inspired proof that 
the word "daily" is an interpolation. It will be 
well to observe also that the Greek text of Tisch- 
endorf and the text of Lachmann do not contain 
the word "daily." Griesbach considers the word 
"daily" in this text as doubtful. Beyond doubt it is 
an interpolation, and standing as it does in the author- 
ized version is doubtless the basis of the widespread 
erroneous interpretation of bearing the cross. 

Xone of the apostles in their writings used the ex- 
pression "bear the cross"; it is found only in the 
teachings of Christ: but Paul sets forth the same idea 
in other terms. He adopts the term "crucified," testi- 



BEARING THE CROSS. 171 

fying in Gal. 2:20: ''I am crucified with Christ: never- 
theless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and 
the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith 
of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for 
me." Is not this text a strong proof that Paul under- 
stood the bearing of the cross, taught by our Savior, 
to have reference to a spiritual death that men die 
when they become Christians? Surely he derived his 
idea of spiritual crucifixion from Christ's teaching on 
the bearing of the cross. 

In the same epistle Paul shows what is put to death 
in the crucifixion he testifies to having received in the 
text last quoted. In the 14th verse of the sixth chap- 
ter he says: "But God forbid that I should glory, save 
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the 
world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." 
Again he says in Gal. 5:24: ''And they that are 
Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and 
lusts." The flesh that this text shows to be crucified 
in those who are Christ's, is the sinful nature born in 
us, and its affections and lusts are our sinful deeds. 
In verses 19-21 he enumerates a great many of the 
works of the flesh. ''Now the works of the flesh are 
manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, un- 
cleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, 
variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 
envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such 
like." All these and such like wickednesses are put 
to death in the true Christians, and we must be cruel- 



172 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

fi^id to our entire life of wickedness to be true disciples 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

I will consider one more text in Paul's writings. 
''What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, 
that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, 
that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know 
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we 
are buried with him by baptism into death : that like 
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of 
the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 
life. For if we have been planted .together in the 
likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness 
of his resurrection : knowing this, that our old man is 
crucified with him, that the body of sin might be 
destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 
For he that is dead is freed from sin." — Rom. 6:1-7. 

On the premises that those who are saved are dead 
to sin, Paul argues in the foregoing verses that 
saved people live without committing sin. He speaks 
of the Christian as having been planted in the likeness 
of Christ's death. By this he means to teach that as 
Christ was literally nailed to the cross and afterwards 
the cross was planted, he being left to die upon it, so 
we are to be nailed upon the cross, spiritually, and 
then have the cross planted, and there die morally to 
all the sins of this world. 

But what does the apostle say is put to death in the 
crucifixion he is teaching? The answer is: /'That our 



BEAKING THE CROSS. 173 

old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin 
might be destroyed." The "body of siri" is a term 
used by Paul to designate the sinful nature that we 
have inherited from Adam. This is completely de- 
stroyed in the second work of grace. The "old man" 
here mentioned as the thing crucified will be explained 
in another chapter. 

In conclusion we will observe that Paul in the text 
last quoted teaches a twofold crucifixion unto sin. In 
Eom. 6:3, 4 he says, "Know ye not, that so many of 
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into 
his death? Therefore we are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from 
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
should walk in newness of life." 

The Word here teaches the two spiritual baptisms 
taught in the New Testament generally. In the first 
we are baptized by the Holy Ghost into Christ. This 
baptism is identical with the birth of the Spirit men- 
tioned throughout the New Testament. In the second 
we are baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit. (See 
the literal rendering of Matt. 3:11.) This baptism is 
that commonly known as the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. 

The baptisms mentioned in these two verses can not 
be identical; because we receive the one and "there- 
fore" the other. 

Both of these baptisms are into death. In the first 
we are baptized into Christ into death. In the 



174 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

second we are buried with Christ into death. Both of 
these baptisms into death are placed under the head- 
ing of death to sin, which is introduced in the second 
verse. We have therefore a twofold death or crucifix- 
ion to sin taught in these verses. In the first spiritual 
baptism — regeneration — we are crucified to the world, 
the devil, and all actual transgression, and in the 
second spiritual baptism — sanctification — the inherited 
sinful nature, the ''old man," is crucified, and actually 
destroyed out of our hearts. 

A twofold death implies a twofold life. If our cruci- 
fixion to sin is divided into two parts, our resurrection 
to spiritual life must also be divided into two parts. 
Since in regeneration there is a death to sin so far as 
pertains to the outward life of disobedience, there 
must also be a resurrection to spiritual life in regener- 
ation to the same extent. And since there is a cruci- 
fixion to the inbred nature of sin in sanctification, 
completing in us the death to sin, there must also be a 
resurrection to spiritual life in sanctification, complet- 
ing in us the resurrection to spiritual life. Hence, 
we conclude that in regeneration the resurrection to 
spiritual life is begun, and in sanctification it is com- 
pleted. This very fact is verified by the following 
words of the Savior: ''I am come that they might have 
life, and that they might have it more abundantly." 
— Jno. 10:10. 



PRESENT AND FUTURE SALVATION. 175 

PRESENT AND FUTURE SALVATION. 



There are some texts of scripture that speak of a 
salvation in the future. In Rom. 13:11 Paul says: 
''Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." 
That he is here speaking of a future salvation, even 
for Christians, can not be denied. Jesus, in Matt. 
24:13 (after he had prophesied of great tribulations 
through which the Christians should be called to pass) 
says: "He that shall endure unto the end, the same 
shall be saved." Here salvation is dated at the end. 
He is surely speaking of a salvation to be obtained in 
the day of judgment. I do not therefore deny a future 
salvation, but I hold that those who believe in future 
salvation are wrong in their conclusion that the future 
salvation is the only salvation spoken of in the word of 
God. ■ They are claiming more for these texts than is 
contained in them. They affirm a future salvation but 
do not deny a present salvation. If therefore there are 
any other texts which speak of a present salvation, 
they do not contradict the texts which speak of a 
future salvation. 

We will turn our attention for a time to the present 
salvation. In 1 Cor. 1:18 we read: ''For the preaching 
of the cross is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto 
us which are saved it is the power of God." Again we 
read in 2 Tim. 1:9: "Who hath saved us, and called 
us with an holy calling." These texts speak of a sal- 
vation that Christians have already obtained; therefore 



176 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

it can not be identical with, the future salvation that 
we have seen in other texts. 

In Heb. 2:3 the question is asked: ^'How shall we 
escape if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the 
first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was con- 
firmed unto us by them that heard him?" The salva- 
tion mentioned here is a present salvation, otherwise 
there would be no possibility of our neglecting it. 
That which may be neglected is that which is obtain- 
able, and that which is obtainable is in the present. 
Therefore we have a present salvation taught also in 
this text. 

It is here stated that this present salvation was first 
spoken by our Lord, and afterwards confirmed by 
them that heard him. It would appear that the apos- 
tle had the two salvations in his mind when he wrote 
this text. The words "How shall we escape if we 
neglect so great salvation?" seem to signify, How shall 
we expect to obtain the future salvation, if we neglect 
this great present salvation? 

The crowning proof of a present salvation is found in 
2 Cor. 6:2 — "For he saith, I ha\^e beard thee in a time 
accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succored 
thee; behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now 
is the day of salvation." All doubts about a present 
salvation are dispelled by this text. If now is the day 
of salvation, there is a salvation to be obtained now, 
and I need not add further comments to make the 
reader see it. 



PRESENT A]N^D FUTURE SALVATI0:N'. 177 

I have now proved that there is a present salvation 
and a future salvation. We must not therefore isolate 
those texts which speak of a future salvation from the 
rest of the scriptures, and hold that they reach the only 
salvation contained in the Word. Neither must we 
isolate those texts which speak of a present salvation 
from the rest of the scriptures, and hold that they 
teach the only salvation in the Word. Since there is 
both a present and a future salvation, let us acknowl- 
edge them both and endeavor to find out the nature 
of each. 

Salvation signifies a deliverance. Then, since there 
are two salvations, we are to expect two deliverances. 
What therefore are we delivered from in each of these 
salvations? is the question that should chiefly engage 
our minds. 

In previous chapters it has been shown that the 
present salvation is a deliverance from all sin. This 
idea may be more fully proved by a consideration of 
the tenses. ''Behold, the lamb of God, which taketh 
away [^present tense] the sin of the world." Here 
salvation from sin is placed in the present tense. "The 
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth [prese)it tense] 
us from all sin." Here again the salvation from sin is 
placed in the present tense. In this we have an unan- 
swerable argument that the present salvation delivers 
us from all sin. We might yet observe the woris of 
Jesus in John 8:21 — "I go my way, and ye shall seek 
me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye 

1-2 



178 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

can not come." These words prove conclusively that 
the present salvation delivers us from sins; for if to 
die in our sins prevents us from going where Jesus 
went, namely, to heaven, then we must be saved from 
sins before we die, or we can not go to heaven. 

Those who adhere exclusively to the doctrine of 
future salvation affirm that a perfect deliverance from 
sin will not be obtained until after death. This they 
speak in their blindness. They can see but one salva- 
tion in the word of God. I warn all such to beware of 
their heretical idea; for it will prove the damnation of 
their souls if they continue in it. It matters not 
how honest people may be, Jesus has said, '*If ye die 
in your sins, whither I go ye cannot come." Honesty 
is not orthodoxy, neither will a man who denies a 
present salvation from sin, although he be honest, 
ever obtain it until he abandons his erroneous idea. 
It he dies before he obtains salvation from sin, his soul 
is lost forever, since death ends his opportunity to 
obtain salvation from sin. 

Some will doubtless ask when they have followed me 
to this place what we are to be saved from in the 
future salvation, if the present salvation saves us from 
all sin. To such I would say: The future salvation is 
not a salvation from sin; all sin is removed from our 
liearts in the present salvation. 

The future salvation is explained in Rom. 5:8, 9 — 
''Hut God commendeth his love toward us in that, 
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much 



PRESENT AND FUTURE SALVATION. 17U 

more, then, being justified by his bloud, we shall be 
sa\ed [future tense] from wrath through him." This 
tc'xt shows that the future salvation will be a salvation 
from wrath. This wrath has not yet come. John the 
Baptist said to some Pharisees and Saducees when he 
saw them come to his baptism, "0 generation of 
vipers, who hath warned you to flee f'^om the wrath to 
come?"— Matt. 3:7. 

''But after thy hardness and imj^enitent heart trea- 
surest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath 
and revelation of the righteous judgment. of God; who 
will render to every man according to his deeds." — 
Kom. 2:5, G. This text shows that the wrath to come, 
from which we are to be saved, is the wrath that shall 
be poured out in the day of judgment. God's people 
will be delivered from that wrath, and as God's wrath 
will be poured out unceasingly upon the wicked in 
endless torment, God's people will be delivered unceas- 
ingly from it; hence the future salvation is called 
"eternal salvation," in Heb. 5:9, which I quote: ''And 
being made perfect, he became the author of eternal 
salvation unto all them that obey him." Mark the 
tiiought so clearly brought out in this text, that only 
those who obey God shall partake of that future salva- 
lion from w.ath in eternity. This is a beautiful com- 
ment on Paul's words previously considered, "How 
shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" 

in conclusion we might briefly consider the condi- 
tions u})on which both the present and the future 



180 THE BETTER TESTAMENT.. 

Scilviitioii are obtained. Eph. 2:8, 9 sets forth the 
terms upon which the present salvation is obtained. 
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not 
of yourselves: it is the gift of G-od; not of works, lest 
any man should boast." Here salvation is said to be 
received by grace, through faith. To receive a thing 
by grace, is to receive it for nothing, as is also tauglit 
in the words: ''It is the gift of God." ''Not of 
works"; that is, we are not to merit the present salva- 
tion by good works. A righteous life is the fruit of 
the present salvation, and not the conditions upon 
which we obtain it. 

The idea of receiving salvation as a reward of merit 
for good works is doubtless based upon some texts of 
scripture which speak of the conditions for obtaining 
the future salvation from the wrath of God. James 
speaks of good works (Jas. 2:14-18) as conditions for 
obtaining salvation. Jesus also speaks of baptism as 
being -conditional of salvation, in Mark 16:15, 16. He 
also makes an endurance of all trials that come upon 
Christians in this life conditional of obtaining salvation, 
in Matt. 24:12, 13; bat in all these texts which make 
good works the condition for obtaining salvation, the 
future eternal salvation is spoken of, and not the pres- 
ent deliverance from sin in this life, which can be 
obtained only by repentance and faith in our Lord 
Jesus Christ. 



A NEW CREATION". 181 

A NEW CREATION. 



Adam and Eve were the first to commit sin. They 
became unholy in their nature through the sin which 
they committed, and by the transmission of their 
unholy condition to their children they compelled 
every human creature to follow their wicked example. 
As it is written, ''Wherefore, as by one man sin entered 
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed 
upon all men, for that all have sinned." — Rom. 5:12. 
Again, it is written, "For all have sinned and come 
short of the glory of God." — Rom. 3:23. But how 
could Paul say, "All have sinned," when a large por- 
tion of the human family had not yet been born? This 
should be explained in the same manner as the paying 
of tithes by Levi unto Melchisedec. The tithes were 
paid nearly two hundred years before Levi was 
born; hence he did not pay tithes in reality, but Paul 
reckons that he paid tithes while in the loins of his 
father Abraham. Heb. 7:9, 10. In the same manner 
did all men sin in Adam. They had not all sinned in 
reality at the time of Adam's transgression, but being 
in the loins of our father Adam, it is counted so, and 
especially was this so counted since every child of Adam 
was in his (Adam's) transgression doomed to inherit a 
sinful nature that would cause him to sin. 

From Adam to Christ there were none who spent a 
sinless life upon earth. All followed the steps of their 
father Adam. This the following scriptures will prove. 



182 The bettek testament. 

''If they sin against thee (for there is no man that 
sinneth not)." — 1 Kings 8:46. "If they sin against 
thee (for there is no man which sinneth not)" — 2 
Chron. 6:36. ''For there is not a just man upon 
earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." — Eccl. 
7:20. These texts describe the lives of all that 
lived before Christ. Being written in the Old 
Testament dispensation, they are not intended to 
describe the condition of the people in the new dispen- 
sation. The Xew Testament agrees that all who lived 
before Christ were under the power of sin. "But the 
scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the prom- 
ise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them 
that believe. "—Gal. 3:22. The term "scripture" in 
this text refers exclusively to the old scriptures, be- 
cause the New at that time were not yet written. And, as 
those old sciiptures concluded all under sin, I consider 
it an established fact that none who lived before Christ 
lived without sin. 

But Jesus lived his entire life upon earth without 
committing sin. Peter says concerning him, "Who 
did no sin, neither was guile. found in his mouth: who, 
when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he 
suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to 
him that judgeth righteously."—! Pet. 2:22, 23. 
Paul also says concerning Christ's life upon earth, 
"For we have not an high priest which can not be 
touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was 
in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 



A KEW cheatiois^. 183 

— lleb. 4:15. Jesus passed through all the trials of 
human life sinlessly; he therefore set us an example of 
a sinless life upon earth, and having completed the 
example, he is able to help his true children to follow 
in his footsteps and live without sin as he did. 

Jesus having completed his life of righteousness upon 
earth became the originator of a new creation. Hence 
Adam is said to have been the figure of him. Rom. 
5:14. His name is by the apostle Paul associated with 
Adam in such a manner as to show that that renowned 
apostle placed him at the hccid of a new creation. 
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made 
a living soul; the last Adam was made a quicken- 
ing spirit." — 1 Oor. 15:45. "The first man is of the 
earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from 
heaven." — Ver. 47. 

The new creation of which the last Adam (Jesus) 
is the head must be superior to the old creation because 
he is the Lord from heaven. 

The following texts are conclusive proofs of the new 
creation. "Of his own will begat he us with the word 
of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his 
creatures." — Jas. 1:18. If the apostles were the first- 
fruits of God's creatures, that is the first created, there 
must have been a new creation which started in their 
time, for we know that they were not the first-fruits of 
the old creation. 

"And that ye put on the new man, which after God 
is created in righteousness and true holiness." — 
Eph. 4:24. 



184 THE BETTER TESTAMENT* 

For in Christ Jesiis neither circiimoision availeth 
anything, nor uncircamcision, but a new creature." 
—Gal. 6:15. 

"Therefore if any man he in Christ, he is a new 
creature: old things are passed away; behold, all 
things are become new. And all things are of God." 
—2 Cor. 5:17, 18. 

The last of these texts is used by those who oppose 
the second work of grace, to substantiate their theory. 
Since those who have received the first work of grace 
(regeneration) are said to be in Christ (Jno. 15:2) and 
this text affirms that "if any man be in Christ he is a 
new^ creature: old things are passed away; behold, all 
things are become new; and all things are of God," 
those who are desirous of opposing the higher experi- 
ence of sanctification, hold that they have in this a 
proof that salvation is completed in one work of grace. 
This has indeed an appearance of soundness, but it is 
after all a misapprehension of the word of God. The 
reader will observe that the words he is^ in the author- 
ized version are printed in italics. The translators 
italicized them to indicate that they are not in the 
original. In the margin they supplied the words Jet 
him be. From this it is evident that they did not 
know just w^hat words ought to be supplied to make 
sense. With the light that we have on the Word we can 
get sense out of the text without supplying any words. 
Leaving out the supplied words he is the text reads, 
"If any man be in Christ, a new creature," or to 



A NEW CREATION. 185 

phrase it better in English, "If any man be a new 
creature in Christ, old things are passed away; behold, 
all things are become new, and all things are of 
God." This does not, like the authorized version, 
make the new creature the result of being in Christ, 
but simply describes the new creature, and therefore 
does away with the idea that the new creation is fin- 
ished when we become members of Christ in regen- 
eration. 

The new creation comprehends both justification 
and sanctification, for it is by these two works of grace 
that we are made new creatures in Christ. Titus 3:5 
shows that there is a making new in both these works 
of grace. "Not by works of righteousness \^ich we 
have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by 
the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost." Kegeneration signifies the new birth; our 
salvation includes a new birth in the first work of 
grace, and a renewing by the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost in the second work of grace. In the first work 
we are made new in our outward life, and in the 
second we are made new in our inward condition. In 
this we have a clear proof of the twofoldness of the 
new creation. 

We shall now explain the "old man" and the "new 
man" mentioned by Paul. "Lie not one to another, 
seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 
and have put on the new man, which is renewed in 
knowledge after the image of him that created him." — 



l86 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

Col. 3:9, 10. ''That ye put off concerning the former 
conversation the old man, which is corrupt according 
to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of 
your mind ; and that ye put on the new man, which 
after God is created in righteousness and true holi- 
ness." — Eph. 4:22-24. In these texts we are com- 
manded to put off ''the old man" and put on "the new 
man." These terms are derived from the heads of the 
two creations, the first Adam and the second Adam — 
Christ — or the old Adam and the new Adam. The 
new man is identical with the new creature, and refers 
to our condition in the new creation of grace. The 
old man refers to our condition in the old defiled crea- 
tion of Adam. In short, we might call the old man 
Adam, and the new man Christ. We partake of the 
nature of Adam in natural birth, and at the age of 
accountability the inherited nature of Adam causes us 
to fall into willful disobedience of God's law and thus 
we partake of the sinfnl life of Adam. We now pos- 
sess both the nature and the life of the old Adam, 
which nature and life constitute what Paul denomi- 
nates "our old man." — Rom. 6:6, 

In the first work of grace we put off the life of old 
Adam (deeds of the old man) and put on the life of 
the new Adam (deeds of Christ). In the second work 
of grace we put off the nature of the old Adam (inher- 
ited sin) and put on the nature of the new Adam (heart 
purity). It is thus that we put off the old man and 
put on the new man — are created anew in Christ Jesus. 



A KEW CREATIOK. Is) 

A new creation was necessary to free men from 
impurity and enable them to live witliout committing 
sin; because the entire old creation is morally corrupt. 
Accordingly we read in Eph. 2:10: ''For we are his 
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
which God hath before ordained that we should walk 
in them." Here it is affirmed that we are created unto 
good works; therefore when we enter the new creation 
we obtain grace to do good works and also to abstain 
from every evil work. 

The two creations might be contrasted as follows 
The first creation was a physical creation. The seconu 
creation is a moral creation. As the first creation was 
physical, it was possible that it might be corrupted by 
sin, because the moral nature as well as the physical is 
transmitted to descendants in the physical creation. 
For this reason Adam's transgression defiled the entire 
physical creation. The new creation being of a moral 
nature, it is not subject to defilement. As we enter 
into the physical creation by physical birth, and depart 
from it by physical death, so we enter the moral crea- 
tion by a moral or spiritual birth and depart from it 
by a moral or spiritual death, and in it there is no 
transmission of a moral nature to descendents; hence 
the impossibility of it being defiled by sin. Adam, the 
head of the old creation, was created in the image of 
God. Gen. 1:20, 27. Likewise Jesus, the head of 
the new creation, "is the image of the invisible God." 
— Col. 1:15. Adam begat his children in his own 



188 THE BETTEK TESTAMENT. 

image, although defiled at the time. Gen. 5:3. Like- 
wise every individual who is created anew in Christ 
Jesus is ''renewed in knowledge after the image of him 
that created him."— Col. 3:10. 



TWOFOLD SALVATION. 



Befoee entering into a further discussion of the 
difference between the two testaments, I deem it best 
to show by a series of chapters the twofoldness of the 
Xew Testament salvation. I shall begin by showing 
that sin in the sinner's heart is twofold. 

We are taught in the word of God that man was 
originally in a state of purity. Gen. 1 :26, 27 tells us 
that God created him ''in his own image and in his 
own likeness. " This text does not signify as some have 
supposed that God fashioned the physical body of man 
after his spiritual foim, bat is to be taken in a spiritual 
sense. In Col. 3:10 it is showii that in the obtaining 
of full salvation man is restored to the image of the 
Creator. Man had lost the image of God in the fall, 
and if man fell from the image of his Creator, it is the 
moral image of God in which he was created; that is, 
man was created pure like God. Solomon said that he 
had found that God had made man upright. Eccl. 7 :29. 
He must have found this out by reading Gen. 1 :26, 
27; for there is no other mention of the moral state 
in which man was created, in any inspired book that 



TWOFOLD SALVATION. 189 

wiis written before the days of Solomon. That man 
was created in a state of purity is proved also by the 
fact that our salvation is termed redemption. The word 
redemption signifies a restoration to a p-imitive state or 
condition. If, therefore, man had not been primevally 
pure, the act of God's grace that delivers us from all 
sin could not properly be styled redemption. 

Man did not retain his pristine condition, but we are 
told in the third chaptei of Genesis that he disobeyed 
God while in the garden of Eden, and fell from his 
state of purity. The fall brought sin upon the whole 
human family. None of Adam's children were born 
until after the fall; hence they all inherited the germ 
of sin from him. This idea meets some antagonism in 
the religious world; therefore 1 shall point out some 
scriptures that substantiate it. 

The crowning proof of the inherited depravity is 
found in the fifth chapter of Komans. In nearly every 
veise from the 14th to the end of the chapter the 
apostle speaks of the fall of the entire human family in 
Adam, and their restoration in Christ. I will 
insert several of his declarations that show the fall. 
"By one man sin entered into the world." — Ver. 12. 
"Through the offense of one man many be dead." — 
Ver. 15. "The judgment was by one to condemna- 
tion." — Ver.- 16. "By one man's offense death 
reigned by one." — Ver. 17. "By the offense of one 
judgment came upon all men to condemnation." — Ver. 
18. "By one man's disobedience many were made 



10.) tkp: better testament. '• 

sinners." — Ver. 19. The one man mentioned in these 
texts is said in verse 14 to be Adam. It is theref()re 
plain to be seen that the apostle here affirms that Adam 
plunged the entire human family into sin. lie is the 
father of all the human family, and as they all inherit 
the germ of sin from the sinful nature which he 
acquired in the fall, which causes them to transgress 
God's laws and become sinners as soon as they are old 
enough to know right and wrong, it is truthfully stated 
by Paul that "by one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners." There is no other sensible conclusion 
that might be drawn from these words. How could it 
be said that "by the offense of one judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation," if that one man's 
offense is not in some sense the cause of the offenses 
of all? And how could one man's offense be the 
cause of all men's offenses, except through the inher- 
ited depravity? And now could it be said that "by 
one man sin entered into the world," except all other 
men ha\e inherited sin from that one man? If there 
were no fallen nature in man, and every man fell sepa- 
rately into sill at the age of accountability, as some 
affirm, these words are heterodoxy. ^o man can 
acquire an understanding of the fifth chapter of 
Romans without believing in original depravity. 

I shall not look for further scriptural proofs of inher- 
ited sin; but if the reader desires to investigate it 
further, I cite him to Eph. 2:3; Ps. 51:5: 58:3; 
Gen. 8:21. 



TWOFOLD SALVATION". lOl 

Common observation as well as the inspired Word 
[)roves that an evil nature is born in the heart of an 
infant. It is manifested in them from earliest life. 

Some oppose the doctrine of original depravity 
because they misunderstand it. They think that to 
acknowledge that sin is born in the heart of an infant 
is to acknowledge the infant a guilty sinner before 
God. Hence they reject the doctrine of original de- 
pravity, on the grounds that it is preposterous to be- 
lieve that an infaut is a guilty sinner. But they are 
confounding sin inherited with siu acquired. Sin 
inherited is never productive of guilt. The infant, 
although possessed with the germ of sin inherited from 
Adam, remains in a state of perfect innocence before 
God until it arrives at the age of accountability. This 
is proved in Rom. 7:9-11, where Paul speaking of the 
infantile state says, ''I was alive without the law once: 
but w^hen the commandment came, sin revived and 
I died. And the commandment which was ordained 
to life, [ found to be unto death. For sin, taking 
occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it 
slew me.'' It was in Paul's infancy that he was 
alive (spiritually) without the law, but when the com- 
mandment came, tha.t is, when he became old enough 
to understand the lav/ of God, sin (inherited) revived, 
and he died (spiritually in trespasses and in sins). 
Tuis proves infantile innocence and refutes the doc- 
trine of infantile damnation, which God-dishonoring 
notion is not believed except by those who fail to dis- 



192 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

tingiiish between sin inherited and sin acquired. Sin 
inherited is only a nature and is not productive of 
guilt. The infant remains perfectly innocent before 
God until he himself commits sin, at the age of ac- 
countability; then he falls into guilt. This is true of 
every human creature when he arrives at the age of 
accountability. It is impossible that a child could 
be brought up into manhood or womanhood without 
falling into actual siu. To this agree the words of 
the scriptures: "All have sinned, and come short of 
the glory of God."— Rom. 3:23. 

If the student w^ill observe the diagram and study 
carefully the fall as marked out on it according to the 
ideas we have already brought forth from the scrip- 
tures, he will be enabled to see that two forms of sin 
exist in the human heart. 

The diagram, as will be seen, exhibits two horizontal 
lines. The upper line represents the line of perfect 
holiness. It was in this state that Adam and Eve 
were created ; hence I have their creation marked on 
that line with the letter C, on the left-hand side. A 
line is drawn just above the line of perfect holiness for 
a short space from C to T, to represent that Adam and 
Eve remained in the state of holiness a short time after 
their creation. T represents their transgression, upon 
which they fell from a state of holiness as indicated by 
the vertical line drawn from T to G, which represents 
their guilty state after the fall. The infant is born 
neither in the state of purity occupied by our first 



Oh 

G 
O 
%-» 
c^ 

s 

c 

C/) 


• 

o 

3 

Regeneration. Innocence. 




/ 




New Life. 


y / 


f- 


< 


o 


o 


- OQ 


13 



TWOFOLD SALVATION. 195 

parents before the fall, because of its inbred depravity, 
nor in the state of guilt occupied by them after the 
fall, because of its innocence. Tlierefore the birth- 
state is indicated upon the lower hoi izontal line by the 
letter B. A short horizontal line is drawn just above 
the lower horizontal line from B to A, to represent 
that the child remains in the state of innocence until 
it is old enough to know good and evil. Then it falls 
below the line of innocence into the state of guilt, and 
continues to sink deeper and deeper into wickedness, 
as indicated by diagonal lines. Two diagonal lines are 
drawn parallel with each other to represent the two 
forms of sin in the sinner 's heart. One line is con- 
nected with the fall of Adam and represents the inher- 
ited form of sin, and the other line starts at the line of 
innocence and signifies actual sins that the child takes 
upon him when he passes the age of accauntability. 

In this the reader can see a necessity for two works 
of grace in the heart. The sinner is two degrees 
below the state in which God created man, and has two 
forms of sin in his heart. It will take one work of 
grace to destroy the sinner's actual sins and restore 
him to the state of innocence occupied at birth, and ic 
will take another work of grace to destroy the sin 
inherited and restore him to the state of purity in 
which Adam stood at the time of his creation. I shall 
proceed to define each of these works by the word 
of God. 

The first work is called in the New Testament, the 



196 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

birth of the Spirit, justilication, regeneration, and a 
state in Christ. We are told in Rom. 8:1 that those 
who are in Christ have reached the state in which they 
have no condemnation. In Rom. 5 :1 we are told that 
"being justified by faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ." To enjoy such an 
experience is to have every sin we have committed from 
the time we passed the age of accountability forgiven, 
and to be restored to our infantile innocence. Tt is 
not hard to see the reasonableness of this idea; for if 
our sins are pardoned, we stand as innocent before 
God as they who never have sinned, and are certainly 
as innocent as the infant. 

But sin inherited is not removed in the first work of 
grace ; it was in the heart of the child before it fell 
into actual sins, and it is in the heart of the regener- 
ated adult who has been raised out of actual sins. Let 
us substantiate this by the word of God. ''And I, 
brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, 
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I 
have fed you with milk, and not with meat; for hith- 
erto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye 
able : for ye are yet carnal ; for whereas there is among 
you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not car- 
nal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of 
Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not car- 
nal?"— 1 Cor. 3:1-4. 

In verses 1 and 2 of this quotation Paul refers to the 
state of certain of the Corinthian brethren at the tinae 



I'WOFOLi) SALVATJOiJf. 19? 

lie had made a visit to them and spoke to them face to 
face. This visit of his to Corinth he describes in the 
previous chapter. He shows in the text before as that 
at the time he was present with them he could not 
address them as spiritual persons, but as carnal persons 
— as babes in Christ. He further shows that when he 
was with them he fed them with milk and not with 
meat; because he affirms that they had not been at 
that time able to bear it. Then he adds, "Neither yet 
now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal"; that is, you 
are yet in the same condition that you were in at the 
time I visited you. Whatever was the condition of 
those Corinthians at the time of Paul's writing, he 
shows that it was the same at the time he was among 
them and preached the word to them. If Paul knew 
them to be sinners when he was preaching to them, 
he was not a faithful preacher; for no minister 
that is faithful to the souls of men will pamper them 
up and feed them as babes in Christ when he knows 
them to be sinners. But Paul did not say they were 
sinners at the time he was among them, but that they 
were babes in Christ and he treated them as such ; 
hence he believed them to be born of the Spirit. But 
although they were babes in Christ when Paul was 
among them, they were nevertheless carnal, and Paul 
knew it. Therefore he was careful, knowing their 
carnal condition, to feed them with milk and not with 
strong meat. 

But what was their condition at the time of Paul's 



198 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

writing? He does not say that they had fallen from 
the new birth; he only affirms that they were carnal 
when he was with them, and that they are "yet car- 
nal." But Avhat does the term ''carnal" signify? It 
must mean that they possessed in them some unholy 
elements, because to substantiate his charge that these 
Corinthians were yet carnal Paul refers to certain out- 
croppings among them that did not spring from sancti- 
fied hearts. He says, ''Ye are yet carnal; for whereas 
there is among you envying, strife, and divisions, are 
ye not carnal, and walk as men?" Surely there was a 
nature in them that was foreign to holiness, and since 
they were babes in Christ, what could it have been but 
inbred depravity? 

Some affirm that a justified person can not engage in 
envying and stri'fe and divisions without losing his jus- 
tification. That depends altogether upon the nature 
and extent of the envying and strife, and divisions. 
Among the Corinthians it was merely a preference of 
preachers. "One saith, I am of Paul; and another, I 
am of Apollos." Could not justified children of God 
be contentious on these lines without entirely losing 
the grace of God out of their hearts? Is this any worse 
than the envying and strife repeatedly manifested in 
the apostles themselves during the life of our Savior? 
Did they not jangle about who should be the greatest? 
did not James and John attempt to make themselves 
the greatest? did not their carnal aspirations cause 
envy and even anger in the other ten? Yet we cer- 



TWOFOLD SALVATION. 199 

taiiily believe them to have been born of the Spirit, and 
why should we not also believe the plain teachings of 
Paul that these Corinthian brethren were also born of 
the Spirit. 

So some to prove that the Corinthians addressed in 
the third chapter of Paul's first epistle were sinners and 
not babes in Christ, refer to other parts of the Corin- 
thian epistles that speak of some that had committed 
actual sins, and thereby made themselves actual sin- 
ners. We should interpret the third chapter of 1 Cor- 
inthians by the context alone and not compare those of 
the Corinthians addressed in the third chapter of the 
first epistle with others addressed and referred to in 
other parts of the Corinthian epistles. 

According to the uniform voice of the Kew Testa- 
ment the condition of those who ha\ebeen justified 
and have not been sanctified is that they possess the 
life of Christ, and also the carnal nature, and are 
therefore in what might properly be called a dual 
state. When Satan tempts without, his temptation is 
resisted by the Christ life, but he can move the carnal 
nature within, and thus render it more difficult for us 
to keep saved in the justified than in the sanctified 
state. 

In sanctification the inbred depravity is destroyed 
by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. "But after that 
the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man 
appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have 
done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the 



200 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost." — Titus 3:4, 5. The two works of grace are 
here called regeneration and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is obtained 
subsequently to regeneration. This will be set forth 
from a scriptural standpoint in the next chapter. It 
is in the baptism of the Holy Ghost that the renewing 
mentioned above is obtained. ''Renewing" is here 
translated from ana-kainosis — a compound word 
formed by uniting cma^ back and kainosis^ a reneioing — 
which word, literally translated, signifies a renewing 
back. The word really signifies a restoration; there- 
fore, we have it taught in the text I have quoted above, 
that we are saved by regeneration and the restoration 
of the Holy Ghost. We have before seen that regener- 
ation restores us to our infantile innocence, while the 
inherent depravity still abides within us; if therefore 
there is a restoration to be received subsequently to 
regeneration, it must consist of a cleansing from 
inbred depravity, which would be a restoration to the 
state of purity from which Adam fell in the garden 
of Eden. . 

Ana-kainosis is also used in Col. 3:9, 10, where Paul 
speaks of the same renewing, or restoration, as follows: 
"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off 
the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new 
man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image 
of him that created him." The renewing (restoration) 
of the new man is accomplished in the second work of 



* TWOFOLD SALVATION. 201 

grace, or sanctification. Paul states that it is after the 
ima^e of him that created him. This proves the 
premises we adduced from the previous text to be cor- 
rect. Adam was created in the image of God (Gen. 
1:26, 27), and if in • sanctification our hearts are 
restored to the image of God, it is proper to say that 
in it we are restored to the state of holiness from 
which Adam fell. This surely proves that we are 
cleansed from carnality in the second work of grace. 

The reader will notice on the diagram that when the 
sinner 'is raised to the line of innocence, the line repre- 
senting actual sins ceases. This indicates that the 
sinful life follows no further, after regeneration is re- 
ceived. The line representing the inherited sin con- 
tinues on until the line of perfect holiness is reached. 
This indicates that carnality is not destroyed out of the 
heart until we are sanctified. Another vertical line 
starts at the line of innocence and follows parallel with 
the line that indicates the cainal nature, until it passes 
the line of perfect holiness. This is to represent the 
new life that is planted in our hearts in regeneration. 
After sanctification it possesses full sway in our hearts, 
which it ever afterward rules to the glory of God. We 
can not fail to see a necessity for two works of grace in 
the arguments brought forth in this chapter. 



^02 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

TWO WORKS OF GRACE RECEIVED BY THE 
APOSTLES AXD THEIR CONVERTS. 



The experience of the twelve jii)ostles plays a 
prominent part in the doctrine of tlie second work 
of grace. Its advocates unscrupulously hold that 
the apostles were born of the Spirit before the day 
of Pentecost, and were sanctified on the day of 
Pentecost. The opposers of the second work of grace 
endeavor to rebut this idea by the bringing forth of 
various texts to prove either that the apostles were not 
regenerated before the day of Pentecost or that they 
were sanctified before that day. The discussion of 
these propositions ,has become so extensive that I feel 
justified in giving them a thorough consideration in 
this volume. 

It is very evident that the twelve were justified prior 
to the conversation they had with Christ in Matt. 
19:27, 28; for there in answer to Peter's question, 
''Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; 
what shall we have therefore?" Jesus said, "Verily I 
say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the 
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the 
throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The 
word "regeneration" in this text signifies new birth. 
It is a translation of the Greek paliggenesia^ which 
word Liddell and Scott define as follows: "New birth, 
new life, restoration, regeneration." So Jesus in this 



TWO WOkKS RECEiVEt) BY APOSTLES. 203 

text unquestionably acknowledged the apostles to have 
been bom of the Spirit. 

In the fifteenth chapter of John the apostles are 
represented as branches of the true vine. This proves 
them to have been converted prior to the night of 
Christ's apprehension (for it was on that night that he 
spoke the parable of the vine and its branches): and 
no one can be a branch of the true vine, except those 
who are grafted in by the new birth. In verse 3 Jesus 
says to the apostles, "Now ye are clean through the 
word which I have spoken unto you." This is another 
proof that the twelve were regenerated before the day 
of Pentecost. 

Some hold that only the eleven had obtained spiritual 
birth before the day of Pentecost, but this is a mis- 
take; because it is plainly stated in Acts 1:25 that 
Judas by transgression fell. He must therefore have 
been converted or he could not have fallen by trans- 
gression. But Judas's conversion, however it was, 
proves nothing for or against the obtaining of two 
works of grace by the apostles; because he made ship- 
wreck before the Comforter came. 

Some argue that Peter was not regenerated before 
the day of Pentecost from Luke 22:32, where Jesus 
said to him, "When thou art converted, strengthen 
thy brethren." If these words were isolated from the 
context, it would certainly prove that Peter had not 
been regenerated up to that time. But when taken in 
connection with the context it conveys a different idea. 



i 4 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

I will quote verses 31-34. "And the Lord said, 
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have 
you, that he ma}^ sift you as wheat: but I have prayed 
for thee, that thy faith fail not : and when thou art 
converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said 
unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into 
prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, 
the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt 
thrice deny that thou knowest me." In these words, 
as the reader will observe, Jesiis was foretelling Peter's 
backsliding, and the very words he employed proves 
that he knew Peter to have been a converted man. 
He would not have said, "Satan hath desired to have 
you," if it were not a fact that at that time Satan did 
not have him. Neither would he have said, "I have 
prayed for thee that thy faith fail not," if he had never 
received a change of heart. The w^ords, "When thou 
art converted, strengthen thy brethren," might have 
been misunderstood by Peter himself at the time the 
Lord uttered them; because in the verses following he 
speaks as though endeavoring to convince his Lord 
that he w'as converted. He said, "Lord, I am ready 
to go with thee, both into prison, and to death." But 
if Peter did understand the Lord to insinuate that he 
was not converted, he surely was awakened to a correct 
understanding of what Jesus was saying after he had 
uttered the words of the 34th verse — "I tell thee, 
Peter, the cock shall not crow^ this day, before that 
thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me." Tak- 



TWO WOEKS RECEIVED BY APOSTLES. 205 

itig all these sayings into consideration, it is not hard 
to see that inasmuch as Jesus is here foretelling 
Peter's backsliding with the words, "When thou art 
converted," he refers to Peter's turning again to the 
Lord after he had backslidden by denying his Lord, 
which doubtless took place soon after the denial; for 
we are told that he went out and wept bitterly. So 
there is no proof in this that Peter was not converted 
before the day of Pentecost. 

For another proof that the apostles were regenerated 
before the day of Pentecost, we turn to the seventeenth 
chapter of John. In verse 14 Jesus testifies concern- 
ing the apostles, "They are not of the world, even as I 
am not of the world." Again in verses 16 and 17 he 
says, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of 
the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy 
word is truth." These words alone would be sufficient 
to prove that the apostles had received a change of 
heart before the day of Pentecost. It was on the 
night of Christ's betrayal that he uttered these sub- 
lime words, and if at that time the apostles were not 
of the world any more than Jesus was of the world, 
they had obtained regeneration; for every man is of 
the world until he attains to that experience. 

Jesus in the foregoing shows also that the apostles 
had not at that time received the experience of sancti- 
fication; for after he had affirmed them to be not of 
the world even as he was not of the world, with the 
very next breath he prays, "Sanctify them through 



206 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

thy truth." If Christ prayed for their sanctification, 
it is evident that they had not yet received it. So wc 
are to draw the conclusion from the proofs already 
brought forth that the apostles were justified prior to 
the betrayal of Christ, but they had not yet been 
sanctified. 

But when did they receive spiritual birth? AVe can 
find no account of their having obtained this change 
after they became the apostles of Jesus. They must 
therefore have obtained it under the ministry of John 
the Baptist. But did John's disciples really obtain the 
new birth? This is a question that we must now de- 
cide. Spiritual birth was certainly obtained under 
John's teaching, because we find that he promised his 
disciples nothing additional to what they obtained 
under his ministry, except the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. Since, therefore, the birth of the Spirit must 
be obtained prior to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
John's converts evidently obtained the former. Ob- 
serve also that the apostle Paul when he found twelve 
converts of John in Ephesus, did not require them to 
repent and be born of the Spirit, but he laid his hands 
upon them and prayed that they might receive the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit. See Acts 19:1-6. If the 
new birth had not been received under John's minis- 
try, Paul would have required these twelve brethren to 
be 1)orn of the Spirit, before he would have ackHOwl- 
edged them candidates for the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. The conditions upon which John received the 



TWO WORKS IIECEIVED BY APOSTLES. 207 

Pharisees and Sadducees to bis baptism proves also 
that he was doing a real spiritual work. When be saw 
them coming to his baptism he rejected them except 
upon the conditions that they first bring forth fruits 
meet for repentance. Matt. 3:7, 8. This will surely 
prove that the converts of John were born of the Spirit. 

John the Baptist was a preacher of the gospel of 
Christ (Mark 1:1-4), and did not instruct men in the 
way of Moses. He taught salvation by repentance 
(Matt. 3:2), and faith in Christ (Acts 19:4), after the 
gospel manner. His converts did not comply with the 
conditions laid down in Moses' law to receive justifica- 
tion, which was the shedding of the blood of animals. 
Heb. 9:22. As they were justified upon New TesL - 
ment conditions, they evidently received Xew Testa- 
ment justification, which is the new birth. 

The apostles were all disciples of John, because Peter 
shows that none but those who had been disciples of 
John could be numbered with the twelve. Acts 1:2J, 
22. So beyond doubt the apostles obtained the new 
birth under the administration of John. 

The apostle John says, ''Whosoever is born of God 
doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, 
and he can not sin, because he is born of God." — 1 
Jno. 3:9. Again, he says, "We know that whosoever 
is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of 
God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth 
him not." — 1 Jno. 5:18. According to these texts the 
new birth enables us to live free from sin; therefore, 



208 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

in it is obtained a cleansing from all sinful habits or 
sin acquired. 

But did the apostles in the new birth obtain a perfect 
cleansing from the sinful nature obtained by inheri- 
tance? We answer, No, because that during the minis- 
try of our Lord inherent depravity was continually 
being made manifest in them. 

In Luke 5:8 we find that when Peter had beheld the 
miraculous draught of fishes, he fell down at Jesus' 
knees, saying, "Depart from me: for I am a sinful 
man, Lord." This is a broad confession from the 
lips of Peter. But remember, he had been previously 
born of the Spirit, and he was yet a sinful man. In 
what sense? He was not guilty of actual transgression, 
because he was born of the Spirit. In what other 
sense, then^ could he have been a sinful man except in 
the sense that he was yet possessed with sin inherited? 

In Matt. 20:20-24 we read of James and John com- 
ing to Christ with their mother to request of him the 
two highest seats in the kingdom. From whence came 
their aspirations to snch greatness? Was it not from 
the carnality of their hearts? Such thirst for promi- 
nence never is found in sanctified hearts. These apos- 
tles therefore in this act manifested the carnality of 
their hearts. But how did the remaining ten conduct 
themselves on this occasion? Verse 24 says, "And 
when the ten heard it, they wore moved with indigna- 
tion against the two brethren.'' Ah! they became 
envious of them. Did not they also in this manifest 



TWO WORKS RECEIVED BY APOSTLES. 209 

tluit carnality was yet in their hearts? The pure heart 
never envies anybody's position, no matter to what 
extent they may be exalted. But the ten were actu- 
ally moved with indignation against the two brethren; 
that is, they became angry at them. Aganakteo^ here 
rendered '* moved with indignation," may be clearly 
translated "were angry," and has this definition in 
Greek lexicons. This proves the apostles to have been 
at tliis time still in possession of the inbred sin. But 
some might question the fact of anger being a manifes- 
tation of sin inherited. I have sometimes heard men 
affirm that it pertained to normal humanity, but this 
is a mistake. There are certain passions that pertain 
to normal humanitj; these were possessed by Adam 
before the fall, and are possessed by us after sanctifica- 
tion. But anger is not such a passion. The apostle 
James says, ''The wrath of man worketh not the right- 
eousness of God." — Jas. 1:20. Paul tells us that 
anger must be put away. Eph. 4:31. Therefore, 
anger is an unholy element and proceeds from sin 
inherited. Since, therefore, the apostles manifested 
anger after they were regenerated, it can not be denied 
on reasonable grounds that they yet possessed inherent 
depravity. 

In Matt. 26 :8 we have another account of the apos- 
tles becoming angered. It was when the woman 
brought the alabaster box of very precious ointment 
and poured it on the head of Jesus. See Mark 11:1. 

At i^^ixother time the apostles had a dispute among 

14 



210 THE BETTKIi TESTA MKNT. 

themselves as to which of them should be the greatest. 
See Mark 0:33, 34. Here again they manifested the 
carnality of their hearts; for sanctified hearts never 
possess aspirations lo greatness; this can not come from 
anything but carnality in the heart. Can we not now 
see the necessity of Jesus praying in John 17 :17 for the 
sanctification of the apostles? When was this prayer 
answered? It was on the day of Pentecost when they 
received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is in the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost that the heart is cleansed 
from inbred depravity. Acts 15:8, 9. 

Some of the antagonists of the second work of grace 
having been driven to see that the regeneration of the 
apostles took place before the day of Pentecost, en- 
deavor to refute the second work of grace by an 
attempt to sustain the idea that the apostles received 
the Holy Ghost also before the day of Pentecost. 
They quote Jno. 20:22, where it is said concerning 
Jesus, ''He breathed on them, and said unto them. 
Receive ye the Holy Ghost." If these words prove as 
they say, that the Holy Ghost was received by the 
apostles on that occasion, it takes nothing from the 
argument that the apostles received two works of 
grace; for this occurred on the evening of the day on 
which Christ arose from the dead, and we have before 
proved that the twelve had received the new birth 
long before that time. 

But we are not to suppose from the words Christ 
uttered when he breathed on the apostles that they 



TWO WORKS RECEIVED BY APOSTLES. 211 

received the Holy Ghost that iiirftaut, because Christ 
plainly taught that the Holy Ghost could not be re- 
ceived before his ascension into heaven. In Jno. 7:38, 
39 we read: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture 
hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living 
water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they 
that believe on him should receive: for the Holy 
Ghost was not yet given: because that Jesus was not 
yet glorified.)" Again, in Jno. 16:7 we read: '^Xever- 
theless 1 tell you the truth: It is expedient for you 
that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter 
will not come unto you; but if I dejjart, I will send 
him unto you." What do these texts prove but that 
the Holy Ghost could not be received before Christ's 
ascension to heaven? The former said that he could 
not be received before Jesus was glorified; the latter 
that he could not be received before Jesus had gone 
away. If, therefore, it was impossible for the Holy 
Spirit to have been received prior to the ascension of 
Christ, we are not to believe that they received it on 
the resurrection day, when Christ breathed on them. 
What is still plainer, on ascension day Jesus himself 
told his apostles that they should be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost "not many days hence." — Acts 1:5. This 
proves unquestionably that they had not at that time 
received the Holy Ghost. And if we notice carefully 
the language of Christ at the time he breathed on the 
apostles, it does not state that they received the Holy 
Ghost; he simply said unto them, "Receive ye the 



212 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

Holy Ghost." These words I understand to refer 
rather to a consecration on the part of the apostles 
than to an impartation en the part of the Savior. 

We are told in Acts 1 :15 that there were an hundred 
and twenty in that congregation who waited in the 
upper -room for the baptism of the Holy Ghost, until 
it was received on the day of Pentecost. Doubtless 
all the seventy as well as the twelve were in the 
assembly of those who received the Holy Ghost. It 
would therefore add to the proofs of our premises if 
we could show that the seventy also were regener- 
ated before the day of Pentecost. This will not be 
hard to do; because Jesus in Luke 10:20 commanded 
them to rejoice because their names were written in 
heaven. None have their names recorded in the 
Lamb's book of life above, but those who are truly 
born of the Spirit ; hence the seventy were born of the 
Spirit when Jesus said these words unto them. It was 
upon their return from their first missionary tour. 
This proves that their regeneration took place very 
early in their acquaintance with the teachings of Christ, 
if not under John's teaching. We have now proved 
that eighty-two out of that hundred and twenty who 
received the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of 
Pentecost had been previously regenerated. 

But what about the remaining thirty-eight? They 
were converted too, because we read in the first chap- 
ter of St. John that during the incarnation of Christ 
"as many as received him, to them gave he power to 



fWO WORJ^S RECEIVED BY APOSTLES. 213 

become the sons of God, even to them that believed 
on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of 
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 
God." — Verses 12, 13. According to this, not only 
the chosen ministers of the gospel were born of God, 
but every individual who accepted Jesus during his 
incarnation. The thirty-eight were of those who re- 
ceived Jesus; hence they were born of God at the time 
they received him, and on the day of Pentecost 
received the second work of grace with the twelve and 
seventy. 

In addition to the account given in the second 
chapter of Acts of the reception of the Holy Ghost by 
the hundred and twenty members of the original 
church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, we read 
of three thousand who w^ere converted to Christianity 
on that da^; that is, they received the first work of 
grace. It will add much evidence to the second work 
of grace, if we can find where these converts received 
a second work of grace. This we can do, but I shall 
first call attention to five thousand more converts on 
the day the lame man was liealed by Peter and John 
on their way to the temple. See Acts 3:1-9; 4:4. 
This made in all about eight thousand converts at Jeru- 
salem who had not received the second work of grace; 
or, in other words, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
Besides these ei,2flit thousand converts, we read in 
Acts 2:47 that others were added daily. So doubtless 
it would not be saying too much to estimate the num- 



214 TH?: BETTER TESTA >fi: NT. 

ber of converts at the time Peter and John were 
arrested and taken to prison (Acts 4:3) at ten thou- 
sand. We are told that after Peter and John were 
released from prison they went to their own company 
and reported all that tlie chief priests and elders had 
said unto them. Ver. 23. !lnd when they heard this 
the entire church lifted up their voice to God with one 
accord in prayer. The result of that prayer is recorded 
in verses 31, 32 — ''And when they had prayed, the 
place was shaken where they were assembled together; 
and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they 
spake the word of God with boldness. And the mul- 
titude of them that believf^d were of one heart and of 
one soul." This seems to have been a more powerful 
manifestation of the Holy Spirit than was witnessed 
on the day of Pentecost; for even the nqvj terra firm a 
was shaken beneath this powerful assembly when this 
multitude of converts received the Holy Ghost. This 
clenrly proves the two works of grace in the experi- 
ence of the first converts of the apostles. If we pro- 
ceed further into the book of Acts, we find other 
similar evidences of the second work of grace. 

In the eighth chapter of Acts we have an account of 
a revival meeting held by Philip. Verses 5-12. 
Philip had gooa success and a great many souls were 
converted in his meeting. Then we are told in verses 
14-17 that the apostles at Jerusalem heard of this 
meeting that Philip had held at Samaria, and sent 
Peter and John down, who, when they came to Samaria, 



TWO WORKS IIECEIVKD BY APOSTLES. 215 

held another meeting, and those souls who had been 
born of the Spirit, when Peter and John had laid 
their hands upon them received the second work of 
grace; namel}^ the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This is 
another proof of the second work of grace in the expe- 
rience of those who were saved under the teaching of 
the apostolic ministers. 

Again, in Acts 18:24-28 we read of a meeting that 
was held at Ephesus by a Jew named Apollos, who was 
a disciple of John and knew only the baptism of 
John. There were twelve persons converted in his 
meeting. He then went to Corinth, and while he was 
at Corinth, Paul came to Ephesus and found these 
disciples and said unto them, ''Have ye received the 
Holy Ghost since ye believed?"— Acts 19:1, 2. It 
appears from the language of Paul's question that he 
did not expect the people who had received bat one 
work of grace to be in possession of the Holy Ghost. 
The language of his question would convey the idea 
that if they had received the Holy Spirit at all, they 
had received him subsequent to the time when they 
became believers; that is, were born of the Spirit. 
Their answer to his question was, "We have not so 
much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." — 
Ver. 2. After further conversation with them, in 
which Paul ascertained that they knew only the bap- 
tism of John (Ver. 3), he explained to them the differ- 
ence between John's baptism and Christian baptism. 
Ver. 5. Then Paul laid his hands upon them and the 



216 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

Holy Ghost came upon them. Ver. 6. These are 
unanswerable proofs of the position I maintain. 
Others might be cited, but I deem the foregoing suffi- 
cient. 



THE TWO WORKS OF GRACE TYPIFIED BY 

THE TABERNACLE OF MOSES AND 

ITS SERVICES. 



In a former chapter it has been shown that the tab- 
ernacle pitched by Moses in the wilderness was a type 
of the church of the New Testament. Under the 
present heading I shall again take up the tabernacle 
and its services to bring out its chief antitype, the two 
works of grace. 

In Heb. 8:1, 2 Paul says concerning Christ: '*Now 
of the things which I have spoken, this is the sum: 
We have such an high priest, who is set on the right 
hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a 
min'sfcer of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, 
which the Lord pitched, and not man." ''Sanctu- 
ary" in this text is from hagion^ a plural form of the 
Greek adjective for lioly. It can not be properly 
translated in the singular as in the authorized version. 
The conjunction "and" is from hai^ which can be as 
correctly rendered even as and. Translating the 
adjective holy in the plural, which must in this con- 
nection be rendered holy places^ and changing and to 



TWO WORKS TYPIFIED BY TABEIJXACLE. 217 

even as we have suggested, the text would call Christ 
"a minister of the hold places, even of the true taber- 
nacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." This 
text is to be explained as follows. The tabernacle of 
Moses typified the church of God under theXew Tes- 
tament. The two apartments of the tabernacle typi- 
fied the two states of grace in the Xew Testament 
church. The holy place typified justification; and the 
most holy place, sanctification. The Xew Testament 
church is the true tabernacle, while that of Moses was 
but a typical one. Christ is the minister in both the 
state of justification and the state of sanctification; 
hence Paul has properly denominated him "a minister 
of the holy places, even of the true tabernacle." 

Ileb. 9:24 is s( metimes used in proof of the idea 
that the tabernacle of Moses was not a type of the 
church upon earth, but of heaven itself. In the 
authorized version it reads as follows: "For Christ is 
not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
which are the figures of the true; but into heaven 
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." 
A careful study of this text in the Greek will show 
that it is intended to teach that "heaven itself" is the 
antitype of the tabernacle of Moses. AJpthinon^ here 
rendered "the true," is in the plural, while ouranon^ 
rendered "heaven," is in the singular; therefore 
heaven can not be the antitype of the literal holy 
places in Moses tabernacle, according to this text. 
The following is a correct rendering of Paul's words: 



'il8 TliE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

"For Christ has not entered into the holy places made 
with hands, the figures of the true ones, but iuto 
heaven itself." It is not hard to comprehend Paul's 
meaning here. He shows that Christ did not enter 
into the literal holy places in Moses' tabernacle, which 
were the types of the true holy places in the New Tes- 
tament church — justification and sanctification — but 
into heaven itself. 

The tabernacle of Moses, as a whole, is never used 
by the writers of the New Testament as a type of 
heaven. Paul when treating upon the priesthood of 
Christ sometimes makes the holy place a type of his 
ministry upon earth and the most holy place a type ol 
his ministry in heaven, as a mediator between God and 
man during the Christian dispensation: but when 
speaking of the tabernacle as typical of something t<» 
be enjoyed by the people of God, he always makes it 
typical of the Xew Testament church. 

The clearest of all the proofs that Moses' tabernacle 
typified the Xew Testament church is to be found in the 
ninth chapter of Hebrews. I will insert the first eleven 
verses, numbering them for convenience. 

''1. Then verily the first covenant had also ordi- 
nances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. 

2. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, 
wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the 
showbread; which is called the sanctuary. 

d. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which 
is called the holiest of ail; 



two WORKS TYPIFIED BY TABERXACLE. 2l0 

4. Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the 
covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was 
the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that 
budded, and the tables of the covenant: 

5. And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the 
mercy-seat ; of which we can not now speak particularly. 

6. Now when these things were thus ordained, the 
priests went always into the first tabernacle, accom- 
plishing the service of God. 

7. But into the second went the high priest alone 
once every year, not without blood, which he offered 
for himself, and for the errors of the people; 

8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way 
into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while 
as the first tabernacle was yet standing : 

9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in 
which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could 
not make him that did the service perfect, as per- 
taining to the conscience; 

10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and 
divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on 
them until the time of the reformation. 

11. But Christ being come an high priest of good 
things to come, by a greater and more perfect taber- 
nacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this 
building." 

Paul here gives a brief description of the tabernacle 
with its tv»'o apartments and the holy furniture con- 
tained in each. In verse 9 he calls it ''a figure for tlie 



220 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

time then present." In verse 10 he shows that it was 
only to be imposed upon the Jewish people '* until the 
time of the reformation." Verse 11 shows that the 
time of the reformation, when the tabernacle of Moses 
should pass out of use, was the coming of Christ — ''by 
a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with 
hands." AVe can not fail to understand from these 
verses that the tabernacle of Moses was a type of the 
church of Jesus Christ. 

In verses 6, 7 Paul refers to the two orders of 
priests, and shows that the priests accomplished 
service always, that is, daily in the first apartment, or 
holy place, and that the high priest alone went once a 
year into the second apartment, the holiest of all, to 
atone for the people. Then follow the words of verse 
8, which is not clearly rendered in the authorized 
version. "Holiest of all" in this verse is an erroneous 
translation of liaqion^ which should be rendered lioly 
"places^ as in Heb. 8:2. A literal translation of this 
verse is as follows: "By this the Spirit of the Holy 
One showing the way of the holy places not to have 
been manifested while the first tabernacle was yet 
standing." The meaning of these words of Paul is as 
follows. He had just referred, in the two verses imme- 
diately preceding this one, to the services of the priests 
daily in the holy place and of the high priest once a 
year in the most holy place. It was by the services of 
the two orders of priests that the Spirit of the Holy 
One indicated under the old covenant that the way of 



THE FORSAKING OF ALL A:>ID COKSECRATION. 221 

the holy places was not yet made manifest. The New 
Testament Avay is the way of the holy places; justifica- 
tion is the true holy place, and sanctification the true 
most holy place. Only the high priest was admitted 
into 1 he most holy place in the tabernacle of Moses. This 
typified that admission into the true most holy place 
— sanctification, typined by that literal most holy place 
— could not be obtained while the services of the first 
tabernacle continued. Also none but the priests could 
serve in the holy place of the literal tabernacle. This 
signified that the true holy pUice, or the new birth, 
typified by that literal holy place could not be entered 
while that first tabernacle remained standing. Surely 
we can not fail to see from the teachings of Paul that 
the two holy places in the tabernacle of Moses typified 
the two states of grace in the New Testament church. 



THE FORSAKING OF ALL AND CONSE- 
CRATION. 



It is shown in former chapters that there are 
two cleansings to be received. In this I shall show 
the conditions upon which each is obtained. Those 
who have, by the; influence of the Spirit of ihe apos- 
tasy, confounded the two cleansings have confounded 
also the conditions required in the word of God for 
the obtaining of each. By the assistance of God's 
Holy Spirit we have been enabled to rightly divide the 



222 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

word of God upon this subject. In one sense faith is 
the condition for obtaining both works of grace, or, 
as we might express it, it is faith that brings ns into 
these graces; but it is not my intention to treat upon 
faith here, but to show the necessary conditions to be 
met on our part to bring us upon believing grounds. 
I shall place the conditions for obtaining the first 
work of grace under the heading "A Forsaking of 
All," and the conditions for obtaining the second work 
of grace under the heading ''Consecration." The 
former comprehends a perfect repentance ; the hitter, 
a dedication of one's self to God. 

A FORSAKJISG OF ALL. 

We must not confound a forsaking of all with con- 
secration. Jesus requires men to forsake all to become 
his disciples. "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh 
not all that he hath, he can not be my disciple." — 
Luke 14:33. He does not say that except we forsake 
all we can not receive the second work of grace, but 
that if we do not forsake all we can not be his disci- 
ples. We become disciples of Christ in the new birth; 
therefore, since we are required to forsake all to be- 
come disciples of Christ, the forsaking of %\\ is the 
condition for obtaining the new birth. The apostles 
of Christ, as we have previously shown, were born of 
the Spirit prior to the death of Christ, but they did 
not receive sanctification, or the second cleansing, 
until after that event; yet Peter testifies to Christ long 
before his death, "Behold, we have forsaken all, and 



THE FORSAKING OF ALL AND COXSECRATION. 223 

followed thee." — Matt. 19:27. If the apostles, who at 
this time, had obtained only the first work of grace, 
had forsaken all, the forsaking of all unquestionably 
belongs to the conditions for obtaining the first work 
of grace. 

The question now arises: AVhat is comprehended in 
a forsaking of all? Christ's answer to Peter shows us 
something that is included in it. It is as follows: 
"Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, 
or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or 
lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred- 
fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." — Ver. 29. 
See also Mark 10:28-30; Luke 18:28-30. In another 
place Jesus says, "If any man come to me, and hate 
not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, 
and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, 
he can not be my disciple." — Luke 14:26. The Savior 
does not mean to teach in this place that we are 
actually to hate our relatives and our life as we un- 
derstand the word "hate" to-day, but he simply means 
that we are to accept him before every one who is 
bound to us by the ties of nature. The same idea of 
forsaking our friends is set forth in Matt. 10:37 — "He 
that loveth father or mother more than me is not 
worthy of me : and he that loveth son or daughter 
more than me is not worthy of me." The word hatred 
is not used here, but the same idea is expressed. 
This explains the meaning of the word "hate," as 
used in the previous text. We have now seen that 



224 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

to become a disciple of Christ we must forsake all our 
relatives, our life, and our houses and lands. He who 
has not done this can never be accepted by Christ; be- 
cause Jesus emphatically states that ''whosoever for- 
saketh not all that he hath, can not be my disciple." 

In other parts of the JSTew Testament there are some 
things mentioned that must be given up before we can 
obtain salvation. In Titus 2:11, 12 we read: "The 
grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to 
all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and 
worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and 
godly, in this present world." This teaches us that we 
must deny ungodliness and worldly lusts in order that 
we may lead a life of soberness, righteousness, and god- 
liu'^ss. The righteous life begins when we obtain the 
new birth. If, therefore, we must deny ungodliness and 
worldly lusts before we can enter a state of grace in 
which we can live soberly, righteously, and godly, the 
denying of ungodliness and worldly lusts is conditional 
of obtaining the new birth. The forsaking of the 
world, therefore, comes in repentance, and not, as 
some suppose, in our consecration for the second work 
of grace. 

AVe must not only give np worldliness in the sense 
of abstaining from it, in repentance, but we must for- 
sake even the very love for the world. The apostle 
John says in 1 Jno. 2:15, "Love not the world, 
neither the things that are in the world. If any man 
love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 



THE FORSAKIXG OE ALL AND CONSECRATION. 225 

John here shows very plainly that we can not be in 
love with the world and have the love of God in our 
hearts. Whosoever therefui'o will feign himself to 
be born of God, while his heart still reaches out after 
the world, whether he indulges in worldliness or not, 
is deceived; for all these things are purged away in 
regeneration. The apostle James tells us that we can 
not bo children of God and be in friendship with the 
world. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not 
that the friendsliip of the world is enmity with God? 
Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world, is 
the enemy of God." — Jas. 4:4. This text is very 
plain. God's friejids are the world's enemies and the 
w^orld's friends are God's enemies. Surely we are all 
convinced by this time that we must fully- forsake the 
world to be truly born of the Spirit. 

The forsaking of all things, as taught in the New 
Testament, is properly divided into two classes. 
First. The forsaking of evil things, in the sense of 
actually abandoning them. Second. The forsaking 
of earthly ties, which are not to be abandoned, except 
in cases where Ave would bo called upon to choose 
between them and ihe service of God, in which case 
we are required to cling unto God, although it should 
require an actual abandonment of the very dearest 
earthly ties. In the abandonment of evil things is 
comprehended the forsaking of all the works of the 
world, immoral, and of the flesh, and of the devil. 

Among the immoral works of the world, we should 

15 



226 THE BETTER TI-STAMENT. 

place the greed for filthy lucre. Jesus taught that 
Christians must not lay up for them.selves treasures 
upon earth, because that where their treasure is their 
heart Avill always be. See Matt. 6:19-21. The laying 
up of earthly treasures must be considered an evil 
because Jesus forbids it; therefore to forsake all evil 
we must forsake also the laying up of earthly treasures. 
isot only must Are cease to lay up earthly treasures, to 
become a disciple of Christ, but we must also forsake 
the treasures ihat we have laid up during our sinful 
career. When sinners came to Christ inquiring what 
they must do to obtain eternal life, he told them to go 
and sell what they had and give it to the poor, and 
they should have treasures in heaven. See Matt. 19:21. 
Once when he was preaching he said unto the people, 
''Sell that ye have, and give alms." — Luke 12:33. 
These are positive commandments, and we should inter- 
pret them literally. It is contrary to the teachings of 
Christ eithei' to lay up treasures on earth or to hold 
them in our possession after we have them laid up. 

Jesus evidently did not mean to teach his disciples 
that to give up their earthly treasures they couLl not 
possess even a homestead; for the apostles wlio testi- 
fied that they had forsaken all, according to Christ's 
tea(diing, seem to have possessed homes. We are told 
that the apostle Peter had a house. Matt. S:14. So 
had the apostle Levi (Luke 5:29), and the apostle 
John (John 19:27), and the e^^ang'list Philip (As-ts 
21:8), and the disciples Mary and Martha. Luke 



THE FORSAKING OF ALL AND CONSECRATION. 2*27 

10:38. When Jesus was instructing his disciples con- 
cerning their flight from Judea, at the time it should 
be overrun by the Roman armies, he said: "Let him 
which is on the housetop not come down to take any- 
thing out of his house." — Matt. 24:17. When Paul 
was rebuking the Corinthians for their abuses of the 
Lord's Supper, he said unto them: "What? have ye 
not houses to eat and to drink in?" — 1 Cor. 11:22. 
When the apostle John was warning the Christians 
against false teachers, he said unto them: ''If there 
come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." 
— 2 John 10. From these texts it appears very 
evident that the forsaking of houses and lands and the 
selling of possessions and giving to the poor, required 
by Jesus in repentance, allows that we may possess 
homesteads, or even hold a certaiu amount of capital in 
our hands when it is for God's glory to do so. It is 
only laying up treasure that Jesus forbids. The hold- 
ing of as much capital as we can use to God's glory, in 
our possession, is not really laying up treasures. That 
expression properly belongs to the hoarding up of more 
means than we can use to the glory of God; but while 
God will allow us to hold certain means in our posses- 
sion, it must be so completely given to the Lord, in 
repentance, that we will even part with the last cent, 
if God should so order. 

CONSECUATIOX. 

We will now proceed to an explanation of consecra- 



•^28 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

tion, which, as we have before seen, comprehends the 
conditions that bring us upon believing grounds, from 
which we can enter the experience of sanctification. 
We will first observe that we must be in a good spirit- 
ual condition to present ourselves acceptably for sancti- 
fication. "I am the true vine, and my Father is the 
husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not 
fruit he taketh away; and every branch that beareth 
fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more 
fruit." — Jno. 15:1,2. The Lord here represents his 
church by the figure of a vine and its branches. He 
tells us that he is the vine, and we are the branches. 
All men are not branches of the true vine, but only 
those who have been grafted in, as Paul expresses it, 
contrary to nature. Eom. 11:24. The grafting con- 
trary to nature is the new birth; hence only those who 
have obtained the new birth are branches of Christ. 
The purging promised to the branches is the second 
cleansing, or sanctification, which destroys inherited 
depravity. The conditions here laid down consist of 
our being a branch of Christ, and the bearing of fruit. 
The fruit we bear is a righteous life; therefore the 
conditions for obtaining the purging are: to be born of 
the Spirit and to be living a righteous life. 

In the seventeenth chapter of John Jesus prays for 
the sanctification of his apostles, as follows: "They 
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world, 
sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." 
—Verses, 16, IT. The recommendation that Jesvis 



THE FOKSAKING OF ALL AXl) COXSECRATION. 229 

here gives his apostles is that tliey are not of the world; 
and upon this recommendation he petitions the Father 
for their sauctification. Being not of the world- is 
therefore the condition here expressed for obtaining 
sanctification. 

The condition upon which sanctification is received 
is very beaiitif ally set forth by the apostle Paul in the 
fifth chapter of 1 Thessalonians. This chapter is, in 
the main, but an exhortation to a righteous life. He 
exhorts the Thessalonians to sobriety, prayer, rejoic- 
ing, thanksgiving, abstaining from evil, patience, not 
to quench the Spirit, not to despise prophesyings, not 
to render evil for evil; but to do good, to put on the 
breastplate of faith and love, to comfort and edify one 
another, to esteem very highly those who labored 
among them, to warn the unruly, to comfort the 
feeble-minded, to prove all things, to hold fast that 
which is good, to abstain from all appearance of evil. 
Then he adds, "And the very God of peace sanctify 
you wholly," and gives them the assurance "Faithful 
is he that calleth you, who also will do it." Observe 
how Paul here promises sanctification to the Thessalo- 
nians upon the condition of a holy life. All this cata- 
logue of exhortation to righteousness, he sets forth as 
conditional of sanctification. This is in perfect 
harmony with Jesus' teaching in the fifteenth chapter 
of John, where he promised the purging to the fruit- 
bearing branches. 

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, 



230 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of 
Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." — 1 
Jno. 1:7. The cljansing from all sin mentioned here 
is the second work of grace. It is predicated upon the 
condition of our walking in the light as God is in the 
light. 

Kom. 6:19, as translated by Wilson in the Emphatic 
Diaglott, sets forth the required condition of our heart 
to make a consecration for sanctification, just as we 
have seen it set forth in the texts we have ah-eady 
quoted. It reads as follows: ''I speak humanly 
(because of the weakness of your flesh) ; for as you 
presented your members enslaved to impurity and 
iniquity, so now present your members bound to right- 
eousness for sanctification." The condition here, in 
which we are to present ourselves for the reception of 
sanctification, is that our members are to be bound to 
righteousness. In the previous verse Paul speaks of 
the presentation of ourselves unto the Lord for the new 
birth, in which he shows we were set free from sin and 
became the servants of righteousness. In this verse 
he shows that when we presented ourselves for the new 
birth we were enslaved to impurity and iniquity; and 
here he commands us just as we piesented our mem- 
bers the slaves of impurity and iniquity, to obtain the 
new birth, so now to present our members the slaves 
of righteousness, such as we have become in the new 
birth, for sanctification. 

A verv similar idea to this is contained in Wilson's 



THE FORSAKING OF ALL ANT) COXSECRATIOX. 281 

translation of Eph. 5:25, 26, which reads as follows: 
"Husbands, love your wives, even as the Anointed One 
loved the congregation, and delivered himself upon 
her behalf; so thai having purified her in the bath of 
water, he might sanctifv her by the word." Sanctifica- 
tion is here predicated upon the condition of having 
been previously purified in the bath of water. This 
purification in the bath of water is the new birth. It 
is called a purification in the bath of water to call 
attention to the laver in which the priests under the 
Old Testament washed their hands and their feet 
before entering into the holy place, which washing 
typified the washing away of our sins in the birth of 
the Spirit, under the Xew Testament. We might read 
the entire New Testament through and we would 
everywhere find sanctification dependent upon the 
same condition as in the texts I have inserted. 

We have seen that in order to obtain sanctification 
we must present ourselves according to the following 
conditions: First. We must be a branch of the true 
vine. Second. We must be bearing fruit. Third. We 
must not be of the world. Fourth. We must be leading 
a righteous life. Fifth. We must be walking in the 
light as God is in the light. Sixth. We must be bound 
to righteousness. Seventh. We must be previously 
tvashed in the bath of water; that is, born of the 
Spirit. The substance of all these conditions is that 
we must present ourselves for sanctification in a good 
justified condition before God. Those who come 



232 THE RETTER TESTAMENT. 

according to this condition will never fail to obtain 
sanctification. 

Consecration is dedication; therefore in the conse- 
cration of ourselves to God we dedicate ourselves to 
the service of God. In repentance we cause our mem- 
bers to cease to do the works of the wicked one, but 
the carnal nature, which still remains within us after 
regeneration, hinders, to a great extent, the free use of 
our members for tlie Lord's glory. When we make a 
complete dedication of ourselves, our time, our talents, 
OLir service, and our members unto God, we are enabled 
by faith to obtain the baptism of the Holy Ghost ^ 
which cleanses our hearts from the inbred sin, the 
great hindrance in the life of the regenerated child of 
God, thus enabling us to live closer to God and do 
more for God than we can before we are sanctified. 
This is what our Savior meant by his teaching in Jno. 
15:2, that we are to receive a purging from the Father 
after regeneration to enable us to bring forth more 
fruit. 



THE BETTER JUSTIFICATION. 



**Be it known unto you therefore, men and breth- 
ren, that through this man is preached unto you the 
forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are 
justified from all things, from which ye could not be 
justified by the law of Moses." — Acts 13:38, 39. We 



THE BETTER JUSTIFICATION. 233 

are not to understand from this text that men were not 
justified in any sense by the law of Moses, but that the 
justification received under the law of Moses was in- 
ferior to the justification we receive from Christ under 
the New Testament. A certain justification was re- 
ceived under the Old Testament, but not a justification 
like that received under the New Testament. To shoAv 
the distinction -between the justifications received 
under the two testaments it is necessary that Ave define 
each; then by making a comparison we shall be enabled 
to see wherein New Testament justification is the bet- 
ter. We will first define the justification that was ob- 
tained under the law. 

The first thought to be considered in connection 
with law justification is that it could be obtained only 
by the shedding of blood. This fact has been explained 
in a previous chapter, but I deem it necessary to 
refresh it in the reader's mind by a repetition of the 
same in this place. "And almost all things are by the 
law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood 
is no remission." — Heb. 9:22. This refutes the idea 
advanced by some that those who lived under the law 
could look forward to the coming of the Messiah and 
by faith in him obtain salvation. All the justification 
received in those times was obtained through the law, 
and the law contained no provision for justification but 
by the blood of animals. So we have but to show what 
was purchased by the blood of animals under the law 
to show what was contained in law justification. This 



234 THE BETTER TESTAMEKT. 

brings us at once to the promises connected with the 
sacrificial offerings of the Old Testament. 

In the sixth chapter of Leviticus the man who sinned 
by falsifying to his neighbor was instructed to bring a 
ram without blemish to be offered unto the Lord by 
the priest for a ti espass-offering, whereupon was given 
unto him the following special promise: "And the 
priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord : 
and it shall be forgiven him for anything of all that he 
liath done in trespassing therein.'' — Ver. T. Ood here 
promised to forgive the sins of the transgressor when 
he offered the proper sacrifice. This is a specimen of 
all the proDiises connected with the sacrifices in all the 
law of Moses. Hence w^e forbear to quote any more of 
them, but for the convenience of the reader we cite 
the following references: Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 
13, 16, 18; Xum. 15:25-28. In all these texts we find 
the identical promise that is contained in the text we 
have quoted; namely, that God would, upon the proper 
shedding of the blood of animals, forgive sins. Xo 
text in the law of Moses promises a greater favor than 
this. This therefore is the limit of the justification 
obtained under the law. But they received pardon; 
the Bible says they did, and we are to believe it. And 
the pardon they received was as good as the pardon we 
receive through the blood of Christ. Pardon is par- 
don, no matter upon what conditions it is obtained. 
The i3ardon of all transgressions is a justification; 
therefore the Israelites did obtain a justification under 
the law. 



THE BETTER JUSTIVJCATION. S'^C 

Having now seen what was received in the justifica- 
tion obtained under the law, we will proceed to vshow 
something which pertains also to justification that the 
law could not do. "But in those sacrifices there is a 
remembrance again made of sins every year. For it 
is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats 
should take away sins." — Heb. 10:3, 4. "Every priest 
standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the 
same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." — 
Ver. 11. Here it is stated that the blood of animals 
offered under the law could not take away sins. The 
plural form of the word sin in both these texts, occurs 
in the original as well as in the authorized version. 
The plural form of this word signifies our actual sins; 
because the inherited sin is always spoken of in the 
singular. It is therefore our actual sins that Paul here 
affirms could not be taken away under the law. This 
at one period of my life looked like a contradiction of 
the teachings of Moses, although I never would admit 
it. I always decided that the difficulty lay in a lack of 
understanding in me, and not in a contradiction in the 
sacred volume. For seven years in the ministry of the 
gospel I was unable to harmonize Moses and Paul on 
this point. I would read Moses' plain statement that 
sin should be pardoned wlien the blood of animals was 
otfered; then I would re^id Paul's declaration, "It is 
not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should 
take away sins," and I was confused. 

At length while in secret ])rayor I received a revela- 



236 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

tioii from God that harmonized the teachings of Paul 
with the writings of Moses. It was this, "There is a 
difference between forgiving sins and taking away 
sins." These words of the Holy Spirit instantly 
cleared up this point in my mind, and I have not had a 
confusing thought about it since. I can now harmonize 
Paul and Moses. To God be all the glory. Had 
Moses said the blood of animals could take away 
sins, he would have contradicted Paul. Had Paul said 
the blood of animals could not forgive sins, he would 
have contradicted Moses. But Moses said the blood 
of animals could forgive sins, and Paul said it could 
not take away sins. If the reader can grasp the differ- 
ence between forgiving sins and taking them away, 
as I did when the Holy Spirit showed it unto me, the 
lack of harmony between the writings of Paul and 
Moses will disappear from his mind as it did from mine. 
To illustrate: If a liar should receive the Old Testa- 
ment justification, he would receive pardon for all the 
lies he had told, but would not receive power over the 
evil habit, to refrain from lying thereafter. He had 
been a liar because he was inwardly disposed to lying, 
and as the law could only forgive and could not take 
away sins, he is not delivered from the disposition to 
falsify, and soon he is found indulging in his evil prac- 
tice again, and is in need of another repentance. Such 
is the justification of the law of Moses. Hence it was 
needful that a remembrance should be made of their 
sins every year. The day of atonement, which came 



THE BETTER JUSTIFICATION. 237 

on the tenth day of the seventh month in every year, 
was simply a day of repentance. A great sin-sacrifice 
was offered unto the Lord, and all the people were 
required to afflict their souls; that is, to repent of 
their sins. Lev. 23 :27-29. And not only once a year 
but monthly (Xum. 28:11), weekly (Num. 28:9), and 
twice daily (Num. 28:3, 4), did they offer the blood of 
animals in sacrifice unto God because of their sins, 
besides the many sacrifices on special occasions, and 
those offered for individual cases, etc. All this was 
necessary because the blood of animals could not 
impart grace to live free from committing sin. So 
it appears that the life of the saints who lived under 
the law of Moses was one of continual sinning and 
repenting. 

Having now seen the nature of justification received 
under the law, let us take a look at New Testament 
justification. John sums it up in one brief verse of 
scripture. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and 
just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all 
unrighteousness." — 1 Jno. 1:9. This text shows that 
New Testament justification is twofold. We receive in 
it not only pardon of sins, but also a cleansing from all 
unrighteousness. We have sometimes heard the cleans- 
ing from unrighteousness that is mentioned here applied 
to the annihilation of the inbred depravity in the second 
work of grace. This is erroneous for two reasons : First. 
Because it is predicated upon the condition of a con- 
fession^ and we have no confession to make when w§ 



238 THE BETTER TESTAMEJSTT. 

present ourselves for the cleansing from inherited sin 
which is obtained subsequent to the pardon of sins. 
Second. Because the term "unrighteousness" 
refers rather to our outward acts than to our 
inward condition. Rigliteousness is a form of the word 
right and signifies a doing of what is right. "Unright- 
eousness," therefore, signifies a doing of what is not 
right. Hence to be cleansed from all unrighteousness, 
is to be cleansed from doing what is not right, or in 
other words, from committing sin. So John in this 
text simply meant to show that N"ew Testament justi- 
fication both absolves the guilt of past transgressions, 
and cleanses the heart from the power of all sinful 
habits, thus enabling us to refrain from committing 
sin thereafter. In this we can not fail to see wherein 
Xew Testament justification is better than the justi- 
fication obtained under the law. 

The two justifications are contrasted in the tenth 
chapter of Hebrews. In setting forth this contrast it 
is necessary to insert a text that has been previously 
quoted. Concerning the justification obtained under 
the law Paul says, "In those sacrifices there is a re- 
membrance again made of sins every year. For it is 
not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should 
take away sins." — Verses 3, 4. As a description of the 
justification received under the Xew Testament he 
quotes the following from the prophecies of Jeremiah: 
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after 
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their 



THE bettp:r justification^. 239 

hearts, and in their minds will I write them ; and their 
sins and iniquities will I remember no more." — Verses 
16, 17. After this quotation the apostle adds as a 
comment, "Xow where remission of these is, there is 
no more offering for sin." — Ver. 18. What a beautiful 
contrast of the two justifications! Under the law the 
sins of the people were remembered once a year by the 
offering of a new sacrifice for their sins. This the 
apostle tells us was owing to the fact that the blood of 
animals could not take away their sins. Hence they 
could not live free from committing sin, in that dis- 
pensation. But under the new covenant Jeremiah 
tells us in his words quoted by Paul that our sins and 
iniquities are t,. be remembered no more. TIuF; is 
owing to the fact that the blood of Christ not only 
forgives our past transgressions, but imparts at the 
same time grace to live without committing sins. 
Well could the apostle say concerning such a justifica- 
tion, "Where remission of these is there is no more 
ott'erif g for sin." 

The twofuldness of Xew Testament justification may 
be extensively studied in the Xew Testament. We will 
insert a few more texts. That we are pardoned of all 
past transgressions and restored to a state of perfect 
innocency in Xew Testament justilication is aftirmc<l 
in the folloAving texts. *^Therefore being justified by 
faith, we have peace with Cfod through our Lord Jesus 
Christ." — Tfom. 5:1. ''There is therefore now no con- 
demnation r.. them which are in Christ Jesus, who 



240 . THE BETTER TESTAMEJSTT. 

walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." — Rom. 
8:1. That our actual sinful habits are washed away in 
New Testament justification is made clear in the fol- 
lowing texts. "Thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he 
shall save his people from their sins." — Matt. 1:21. 
"He was manifested to take away our sins." — 1 Jno. 
3:5. "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from 
our sins in his own blood." — Rev. 1:5. 

We are now prepared to understand the text we 
quoted from Acts 13:38, 39, at the head of the chap- 
ter. We will again quote it. "Be it known unto you 
therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is 
preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him 
all that believe are justified from all things, from which 
yc could not be justified by the law of Moses." Re- 
generation is here divided into two parts, "forgiveness 
of sins" and "justification from all things." The con- 
struction of the text distinguishes between these two 
things; therefore forgiveness is not contained in the 
"justification from all things," but the "justification 
from all things" is what we receive in regeneration 
that is additional to the forgiveness of sins. Since 
under the law only forgiveness of sins could be ob- 
tained, the "justification from all things" must signify 
what we receive in New Testament justification that 
was not obtained in Old Testament justification; 
and since that which we receive in New Testament 
justification which was not received in Old Testament 
justification is a cleansing from all sinful habits, the 



SPIRITUAL BIRTH. 241 

"justification from all things" signifies the cleansing 
away of all sinful habits, which enables us to live 
without committing sin. 



SPIRITUAL BIRTH. 



It has been said that we can not be born of the Spirit 
in this life. Even some who believe that we can receive 
a change of heart believe that the new birth mentioned 
in the ifew Testament is not that change of heart. 
They hold that it is not to be received until the resur- 
rection of the body. I feel like bringing forth the 
judgments of the entire I^ew Testament against this 
false doctrine. I shall quote some texts in which the 
new birth is mentioned. * 

"If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every 
one that doeth righteousness is born of him." — 
1 Jno. 2 :29. 

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; 
for his seed remaineth in him : and he can not sin, 
because he is born of God." — 1 Jno. 3:9. 

"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of 
God ; and every one that loveth is born of God, and 
knoweth God." — 1 Jno. 4:7. 

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
born of God; and every one that loveth him that begat 
loveth him also that is begotten of him." — 1 Jno. 5:1. 

^*]For whatsoeyer is born of God overcometh the 



242 THE BETTEK TESTAMENT. 

world: and this is the victory that overcometh the 
world, even our faith."- — Ver. 4. 

''We know that whosoever is born of God sianeth 
not ; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, 
and that wicked one toucheth him not." — Ver. 18. 

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of 
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and 
abideth forever."— 1 Pet. 1:23. 

"Jesus answered. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
Except a man bo born of water and of the Spirit, he 
can not enter into the kmgdom of God." — Jno. 3:5. 

According to these texts the new birth is wrought by 
faith, the Word, and the Spirit. The fruits of it are 
righteousness, love, a sinless life, and victory over the 
world. These facts prove unquestionably that the new 
birth is a change in our moral nature : hence it must 
be obtained in this life; for we can receive no change 
in our moral nature after death. The resurrection of 
the body will not affect our moral nature. It is only 
the body that will then be changed ; therefore the new 
birth being a moral change can not be identical with 
the immortalization of the body in the resurrection. 

As a further proof that the new birth is received in 
this life, we might observe that Peter speaks of some 
who had been born again. 1 Pet. 1:23. Also in 1 
Pet. 2:2 he calls certain ones new-born babes. Paul 
also speaks unto the Corinthians, "As unto babes in 
Christ."— 1 Cor. 3:1. John shows very clearly that 
during the incarnation of Christ ^11 who received him 



SPIRITUAL BIRTH. 243 

were born of God. Jno. 1:12, 13. These are indis- 
putable proofs that the new birth is obtainable in this 
life. The fact that the expressions ''children of God" 
and "sons of God" are repeatedly applied to the Chris- 
tian people in the New Testament might also be added 
to the evidences that the spiritual birth is to be ob- 
tained in this life. 

Let no one therefore put off his spiritual birth until 
after death; for in doing so he is bartering away liis 
soul. The new birth is that part of Justification that 
could not be obtained under the Old Testament. It is 
exclusively a New Testament experience. It is not a 
doctrine of the Old Testament. It is not mentioned 
by thew^riters of the Old Testament, except in some 
obscure prophecies where it is ranked among the 
graces to be enjoyed in the new dispensation. 

That spiritual birth was not obtainable before the 
coming of Christ, is evident also from the plain state- 
ment in the Bible that life could not be obtained in 
those days. In Rom. 5:13, 14 we read: "For until 
the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed 
when there is no law. Xevertlieless death reigned 
from iVdam to Moses, even over them that had not 
sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, 
who is the figure of him that was to come." The 
word "death" in this text refers to spiritual death in 
trespasses and sins, because it is used interchangeably 
with the word "sin." If spiritual death reigned from 
Adam until Moses, no spiritual life was obtained in 



244 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

that age; and if the people possessed no spiritual life, 
they obtained no spiritual birth. In regard to the state 
of those who lived in the Mosaic age, it might be 
observed that Moses gave the law, but his law was too 
weak to give life. Paul says, "If there had been a 
law given which could have given life, verily righteous- 
ness should have been by the law." — Gal. 3:21. Here 
we have the statement virtually that spiritual life could 
not be obtained under the law; and as life implies a 
birth, they could obtain no spiritual birth in that dis- 
pensation. We may therefore safely say that spiritual 
death reigned from Adam to Christ, and that the spir- 
itual life lost in the fall was never regained until 
restored by Christ. 

Life is often found among the rewards promised to 
the obedient in the Old Testament, but in every 
instance it a^Dplies to that eternal life to be enjoyed at 
God's right hand in heaven, or to a prolongation of 
natural life. But that any who lived before Christ 
enjoyed the sweet spirituMl life in this world, enjoyed 
by us in Xew Testament spiritual birth, there is not a 
text of scripture to prove. How full of meaning, 
therefore, the announcement of the Savior: ''I am 
come that they might have life." — Jno. 10:10. And 
also the declaration of Paul concerning Christ: "Who 
hath abolished death, and hath brought life and im- 
mortality to light through the gospel." — 2 Tim. 1 :10. 

Sj)iritual birth implies the impartation of a new spirit- 
ual life. From the new life implanted u ithiii emanates 



feEPENTAXCB. 245 

a new life without. Hence those who have obtained 
this sublime experience no longer commit sin. The 
fact that spiritual birth was not obtained under the Old 
Testament explains why God's children who lived under 
it could not live without committing sin. 



REPENTANCE. 



Repentance is the true requisite for the obtaining 
of salvation; hence it is called "repentance to salva- 
tion." — 2 Cor. 7:10. Repentance and faith constitute 
the conditions necessary for obtaining the new birth, 
and repentance is the predecessor of faith, or in other 
words, it includes the conditions necessary to be met by 
us to bring us into the proper touch with God to exer- 
cise saving faith in his promises. This idea is conveyed 
in Matt. 21 :32, where Jesus said to the hard-hearted 
Jews, ''And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not 
afterward, that ye might believe." 

Repentance is not the work of God in the heart in 
the absolute sense that some suppose. God has not 
predetermined from all eternity who should be saved 
and who should be lost, neither does he bring about a 
repentance in any man independent of the man's own 
will. If it were true that God did work repentance in 
man independent of his own will, he would work 
repentance in all men; because he tells us in 2 Pet. 
3:9 that he does not ''will that any should perish, but 



•2-l:(J THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

that all should come to repentance." In a minor sense 
repentance is the work of God in man; beoause it is 
tlie fruit of a deep and pungent conviction wrought by 
the Spirit and word of God independent of the will 
of man. 

It is possible for man to resist all the convictions of 
the Spirit and the Word and persist in a life of wick- 
edness; hence repentance is in a major sense the work 
of man. This is proved also by the fact that repen- 
tance ranks among the Xew Testament command- 
ments. ''And the times of this ignorance God winked 
at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to 
repent." — Acts 17:30. "Except ye repenl, ye shall 
all likewise perish." — Luke 13:3-5. Such language as 
that contained in these and other similar texts which 
might be quoted would not be found in the Bible if 
repentance was not a work that God requires man to 
do for himself. 

There is nothing that is understood less by the 
nominal Christian than repentance, and there is noth- 
ing that should be understood more. As repentance is 
the first step in the Christian experience, if it is not 
properly taken, the entire experience is a sham. 

Repentance is often defined as a change of the mind, 
but it includes more than this; because men can 
change their minds without repentance. A man can 
decide in his mind that he will become a Christian, 
and yet not possess a proper knowledge of repentance 
to carry out his resolution. Many make such decisions 



RE1>ENTAKC1!!. 24? 

and never strike the real key-note of repentance. In 
repentance the mind is changed, but the mere change 
of mind is not repentance. 

Repentance is sometimes defined as a sorrow for past 
sins. This again is an error; because the Bible tells 
us that "godly sorrow worketh repentance." — 2 Cor. 
7:10. If ''godly sorrow worketh repentance," then the 
sorrow is not the repentance, but its predecessor. Xo 
man will repent without first reaching a state of godly 
sorrow, but it is possible for men to advance thus far 
and not repent. Eepentance is something deeper. A 
man in a state of godly sorrow is in a good condition 
to repent, but if he does not proceed with the true 
repentance, he will never receive salvation. 

People generally take the outward manifestations of 
sorrow,, such as shedding tears and crying out, as signs 
of repentance, but this is not always true. Tears are 
oftentimes shed in hypocrisy. In the second chapter 
of Malachi we read of a certain class who brought sac- 
rifices to God and covered the altar with tears, when 
they were not willing in their hearts to do that which 
the Lord required in a true repentance. Men will do 
the same thing to-day. Tears are in order, and they 
invariably accompany a true repentance; but men can 
shed them without repenting; hence we can not con- 
sider them an invariable proof of repentance. Men will 
sometimes go so far as to present themselves at the 
public altar and shed tears and call audibly upon the 
Lord without a real willingness in their hearts to meet 



248 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

the conditions of repentance that are required in the 
word of God. The words of the Psalmist illustrate 
such shoddy pretensions to repentance — "If I regard 
iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me." — 
Ps. 66 :18. To regard iniquity in our hearts is to justify 
ourselves in that which is wrong. Many will come to 
the mercy-seat with such a condition of heart. They 
are practicing things that are contrary to the word of 
God, and they know it, and they are unwilling to for- 
sake them. Their mouth calls loudly for mercy, but 
their heart says within them, "There is no harm in 
this or that evil practice." Under such circumstances 
they might pray until doomsday without obtaining 
pardon from God. God is merciful, but we can not 
induce him to receive a soul who is not willing meet 
the proper conditions for salvation. 

In the state of spiritual birth men are required to 
live without committing sin. Therefore to obtain this 
sublime experience men are required to turn away from 
all their sinful habits. This is set forth in the word 
of God as a true condition of repentance. Jesus says 
to those who desire to become Christians, "Sin no 
more." — Jno. 5:14; 8:11. Paul commands, "Let 
him that stole steal no more." — Eph. 4:28. Since 
men are required in repentance to cease from commit- 
ting sin, those who believe they can never reach the 
state where they can cease from sin in this world, are 
by their belief rendered unfit to make a tru Bible 
repentance. This is an appalling truth and is doubtless 



REPENTANCK. ^40 

the principal reason why there are so few really con- 
verted people among the masses of Christian professors. 

In the prophecies by Isaiah a true repenta.nce is also 
shown to be a cessation from sin. ''Seek ye the Lord 
while he may be found, call upon him while he is near: 
let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous 
man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, 
and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for 
he will abundantly pardon." — Isa. o5:6^ 7. God here 
promises to have mercy upon men and to grant them 
an abundant absolution from all the sins they have 
committed — but not without the forsaking of all sins 
and evil ways by the sinner. To forsake our evil ways is 
to turn away from all sins of the past; and as pardon 
is nowhere promised upon lower terms, we can safely 
say that all who have not thus turned away from all 
their sins, and ceased forever to walk in their wicked 
ways, have never made a true Bible repentance, and 
how can they be born of the Spirit? 

But the turning away from all our sins is not all that 
is included in repentance, a confession is also necessary 
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to 
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- 
eousness." — 1 Jno. 1:9. "He that covereth his sins, 
shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh 
them shall have mercy." — Prov. 28 :13. The reader can 
see for himself that these texts require a confession with 
the forsaking of sins in repentance. But unto whom 
is this confession to be made? That depends alto- 



250 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

gether on the nature of the sins you have to confess. 
There are some sins which involve only yourself and 
your Creator. Such sins need be confessed unto him 
only. But there are other sins which involve the third 
party; such sins must be confessed both to God and to 
that third party who has been wronged. 

To illustrate: If a man should blaspheme the name 
of God, he has only trespassed against his Creator; but 
if lie should falsify about his neighbor, he has wronged 
both God and his neighbor, and to repent of this sin he 
must confess it both to God and to his neighbor. This 
Jesus taught in Matt. 5:21-24, which we quote. ''Ye 
liave heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou 
shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in 
danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That 
whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause 
?hall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever 
shall say unto his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of 
the council; but whosoever shall say. Thou fool, shall 
be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy 
gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy 
brother hast ought against thee, leave there thy gift 
before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to 
thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." It is 
here shown that those who have wronged their fellow 
men by calling them names, such as Raca (vain fellow), 
fool, etc., when they come to the altar and there 
remember that they have said and done evil things 
against their fellow men, are to leave the altar and go 



repentanch!. ^251 

and be reconciled to their brother, and then come and 
offer their gift. 

In making such reconciliation they are liable to 
strike certain wrongs which would require more than a 
mere confession in order to become reconciled. For 
instance, if a man has committed theft, a confession of 
that crime would not be a sufficient reconciliation. 
It would be necessary to make restitution. The 
prophet Ezekiel includes restitution with the condi- 
tions of pardon in Ezek. 33:14, 15, which I quote. 
"Again, when I say unto the wicked. Thou shalt surely 
die; if he turn from his sin and do that which is lawful 
and right; if the wicked restore the pledge, give again 
that he hath robbed, walk in the statutes of life, 
without committing iniquity, he shall surely live, he 
shall not die." To give again that we have robbed, 
according to this text, as a condition for obtaining h'fe 
from God, is to restore to every man the full amount 
of all that we have wronged him during our sinful 
career. This is a bitter dose for the many rascals that 
inhabit the earth to-day, but except they make such a 
repentance, they can never be born of the Spirit, but 
must suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. 

There are circumstances under which men can not 
literally make restitution. For instance, if a man has 
squandered the means that he has stolen, or wrested 
from another dishonestly, he would not be finanoiaily 
able to pay the full amount. In such a case undoubt- 
edly the rule laid down by Paul concerning financial 



^52 TitE BETTER TESTAMEK^T. 

giving in 2 Cor. 8:12 ('*lf there be first a willing mind, 
it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not 
according to that he hath not.") would apply also to 
restitution. 

A reconciliation with our fellow man may include 
more than a confession of wrong deeds and a restitution 
of that which we have taken wrongfully from him. An 
antipathy may have been allowed to find lodgment in 
our heart. In such a case a perfect reconciliation 
would include a forgiveness of our fellow man for all 
his trespasses against us, and a dropping of that hatred 
entirely out of our hearts. Concerning this Jesus says 
in Matt. 6:14, 15: "For if ye forgive men their tres- 
passes, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but 
if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your 
Father forgive your trespasses." According to this 
text no one who will not freely forgive all those who 
have trespassed against him can obtain pardon of 
sins from God : neither can a man after he has re- 
ceived pardon retain spiritual life in his soul if 
he again allows hatred against his fellow man to 
creep into his heart. ''Whosoever hateth his brother 
is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath 
eternal life abiding in him." — 1 Jno. 3:15. 

We have now set forth a perfect repentance as re- 
quired in the word of God for the obtaining of the new 
birth. It may be summed up as follows: First. W"e 
are to forsake all our sins. Second. We are to con- 
fess all our sins to God, and to our fellow men wherein 



ALL UNDER SIN BEFORE CHRIST. 253 

they are concerned. Third. We are to make restitu- 
tion for all the financial wrongs we have committed. 
Fourth. We are to forgive all those who have tres- 
passed against us. A soul who has made such a repen- 
tance is on believing grounds, and will find it as easy 
as breathing to believe that God receives him for 
his own. 



ALL LIVED UXDER SIX BEFORE THE 
COMING OF CHEIST. 



Under this heading I desire to bring in additional 
proof of the position maintained in this volume, that 
men could not obtain power to live sinless lives before 
the coming of the Savior; and to explain some texts in 
the Old Testament which opposers of holiness use to 
sustain their theories. 

Paul says in Gal. 3:22, "But the scripture hath con- 
cluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of 
Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." 
The scriptures that Paul here speaks of are the Old 
Scriptures; because the New Scriptures had not been 
given at the time of his writing. He says they con- 
cluded all under sin. This shows that Paul understood 
that under the Old Testament nobody lived free 
from sin. 

Let us search in the Old Testameiit for some of 
the texts from which Paul drew his sentiments. ''If 



254 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth 
not)." Here it is plainly stated that "there is no man 
that sinneth not." Xothing could be plainer. "For 
there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, 
and sinneth not." — Eccl. 7:20. This again shows 
very clearly that the Old Testament did not recognize 
anybody to be living free from committing sin. It is 
here declared that even those who were styled just per- 
sons (justified) in those days could not entirely refrain 
from committing sin. 

The Xew Testament just man is in a somewhat differ- 
ent state. Jesus teaches concerning him as follows: 
"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven 
over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety 
and nine just persons, which need no repentance." — 
Luke 15:7. ^^e are here told that a just person needs 
no repentance. If he needs no repentance, he does not 
commit any sin. 

This seems to be out of harmony with the teachings 
of Solomon. How shall we reconcile the seeming ct n- 
tradiction? By recognizing the fact that Solomon wiote 
a thousand years before the Savior came to save men 
from their sins. Solomon spoke the actual truth when 
he said, "There is no man that sinneth not"; for at 
the time he wrote there were none who could live free 
from sin. But since our blessed Savior has shed his 
precious blood to redeem the human family from sin, 
all men may obtain grace to live sinless lives. 

Solomon is not the only Old Testament writer who 



ALL UKDER SIX BEFORE CHRIST. 255 

taught that the people of that day did not live sinless 
lives. David says, "If thou, Lord, shouldest mark 
iniquities, Lord, who shall stand?"— Ps. 130:3. To 
my mind these words show that David knew nothing 
experimentally about living without committing sin. 
He seems to challenge all the saints of his day to say 
they were free from sin. He doubtless possessed some 
knowledge of the fact that seems to have been known 
to all the prophets, that there should come at some 
future time a Messiah who should save his people from 
their sin: but that it was possible for any man of his 
day to obtain grace to live a sinless life, he never hinted 
that he knew anything about it. The tenor of all his 
writings proves the contrary to be true. 

That men could not live free from committing sin 
before Christ is also taught in the epistle to the 
Romans. ''Moreover the law entered, that the offense 
might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did 
much more abound : that as sin hath reigned unto death, 
even so might grate reign through righteousness unto 
eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." — Eom. 5:20, 
21. The terms ''reigned" and "abounded" seem to 
be used interchangeably here. It is stated that siu 
both reigned and abounded under the law. It is even 
stated that "the law entered that sin might abound." 
This peculiar expression is surely intended to signify 
that the law was given with the understanding tha* it 
was not to destroy sin, but that sin was to abound 
imder it; that js, that people should not receive a 



256 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

cleansing from sin under the offering of its weak sacri- 
fices, but should, live a life of continual sinning and re- 
penting, such as we have previously described. 

''For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye 
are not under the law, but under grace." — Kom. 6:14. 
These words, while they affirm that sin shall not have 
the control of those souls who are redeemed by the 
atoning blood under the new covenant, seem to be 
written with the understanding that sin did have do- 
minion over men under the law. The fact that we are 
not under the hiw seems to be the premise upon which 
the apostle affirms that sin shall not have dominion 
over the Christian. This is surely a strong argument 
in favor of the proposition we are endeavoring to es- 
tablish in this chapter. 

As a further proof that men did not live sinless lives 
before Christ, I call attention to the fact that we have 
no testimony upon record of any Old Testament charac- 
ter who professed to live without committing sin. 
Their testimonies are all on the other side. 

Daniel was doubtless as good a man as any who lived 
before the coming of Christ, and he did not profess to 
live without committing sin, but acknowledged that he 
had to make occasional confessions of his sins unto 
God, like all other people of God of his day. In Dan. 
9:20 we read: ''And whiles I was speaking, and pray- 
ing, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people," 
etc. From these words it is evident that Daniel made 
no pretentions to a sinless life. The words we have 



ALL LXJ)KR SIX I5EF0KE CHRIST. 257 

quoted are an account of one of his most effectual 
prayers. lie shows that in it he had made a confession 
first of his own sin, second of the sin of his people 
Israel. His words are concurrent with the idea that a 
confession of his sins in his prayers was habitual with 
him. It could not be consistently argued that it was 
not actual sin that Daniel speaks of having confessed to 
God; for inherited sin requires no confession. 

Xo Old Testament saint lived a better life than 
Daniel. Even the high priest (than whom none ought 
to have been more righteous) did not live without com- 
mitting sin. An honor was conferred upon him that 
was not conferred upon any other man of the Jewish 
nation; that of entering once a year, upon atonement 
day, into the holiest of all to atone for the people of 
God. But we are told that he w^ent in, not without 
blood which he offered first for his own sins, then for 
the sins of the people. Heb. 9:7; 5:3; 7:27; Lev. 16. 
We might continue until we had reviewed severally 
the (jharacters of all the Old Testament saints, and we 
Avould but add to the evidences already presented that 
none of them possessed victory over sin. 

Why then, it might be asked, did David command, 
*'Stand in aw^e, and sin not" (Ps. 4:4), and w^hy w^as 
Ezekiel commanded to preach to the righteous *'that 
the righteous sin not" (Ezek. 3:21), if God's people in 
the old dispensation could not obtain grace to live 
Avithout committing sin? I sliall call the apostle Peter 
to answer this question, as he can answer it better than 

17 



258 THE BETTEK TESTAMENT. 

I can. *' Receiving the end of your faitli, even the 
salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the 
prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who 
prophesied of the grace that should come unto you : 
searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of 
Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified 
beforehand the suffering of Christ, and the glory that 
should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not 
unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the 
things which a?e now reported unto you by them that 
have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost 
sent down from heavt-n; whi'jh things the angels desire 
to look into." — 1 Tet. 1:9-12. The apostle here states 
that the salvation obtainable since Jesus has suffered 
for our sins, was prophesied of, and inquired after by 
the Old Testament pjophets. These expressions a!-o 
show that this great salvation from sin was not obtain- 
able in the Mosaic age. 

The prophets not only prophesied that the tin e 
would come when salvation from sin would be obtaine ', 
but they set forth the moral principles that were 
to be embodied is the Xew Testament, in such lan- 
guage as make them appear to have been in force in 
their day. But Peter in the foregoing tells us the 
prophets ministered these things ''not unto themselves 
but unto us." This explains the whole matter. Da- 
vid when he coninninded "sin not" spoke not unto 
himself, but unto us who are saved in the Christian 
dispensation. AYhen Ezekiel taught the righteous to 



ALL UKDER SIN BEFORE CHRIST. 250 

"sill not," he spoke not unto the people of his day, 
but unto the saints of the new dispensation. AVhen 
Isaiah spoke of his iniquity being forgiven and his sin 
purged, by the application of a coal of fire to his lips 
by an angel (Isa. 6:Q, 7), he spoke not of an actual ex- 
perience of his own, but simply had a vision of the 
great twofold salvation to be wrought in the hearts of 
men in the Xew Testament times, by the Holy Spirit, 
which is the true signification of the live coal Isaiah 
saw. All the texts in the law and the prophets treating 
on salvation from sin are to be explained in the same 
manner as those we have considered. 

The position I have taken in this chapter will ex- 
plain many mysterious texts in the Old Testament that 
many have been unable to harmonize with the Xew 
Testament doctrine of holiness. I refer to that class 
of scriptures which speak of the children of God com- 
mitting sin. According to the teachings of the Xew 
Testament the people of God do not commit sin; but 
"he that committeth sin is of the devil." — 1 Jno. 3: 
8. To advocate this idea in the face of many texts 
throught the Old Testament which affirm that the 
people of God do commit sin, maintaining at the 
same time, as many advocates of holiness do, that the 
true people of God in the old dispensation also lived 
free from committing sin, is to occupy an embarrassing 
and inconsistent position. 

Let us take for instance Jer. 2:13 — "For my people 
have committed two evils." How can this be consist- 



2(50 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

ently harmonized with those Xew Testament declara- 
tions which make ev^ery man who commits a single evil 
a child of the devil? See Jno. 8:34; 1 Jno. 3:8. We 
can not adhere to the teachings of the Xew Testament 
and acknowledge a man to be a child of God when he 
has committed one evil; much less when he has com- 
mitted two evils, as Jeremiah states. 

So it is very evident that we can not successfully 
rout holiness-opposers from behind those Old Testa- 
ments texts, behind which they feel themselves so 
strongly fortified, except w^e acknowledge the fact fully 
proved in this chapter, that none who lived before 
Christ, obtained grace to live free from committing sin. 



ALL CHILDEEN OF GOD LIVE WITHOUT 

COMMITTmG SIX UXDER THE 

NEW TESTAMENT. 



*'We can not live without committing sin, is the 
almost universal cry of those who do not desire to be 
holy. In this saying they fulfill the prediction of the 
apostle Peter in 2 Pet. 2:1, where he piophesied that 
false teachers should deny the Lord ihat bought them. 
When they affirm that no man in this shining New 
Testament dispensation can obtain grace to live with- 
out committing sin they are completely ignoring the 
coming of our Savior, and bringing men down to the 
low plane upon which the world moved before our 
Savior's coming. 



ALL CHILDUEN OF GOD LlVlE WITHOUT SIN. 261 

Let us compare the cry of the holiness-opposers with 
the teachings of the Xew Testament and see the result. 
We shall first consiiler the commandments concerning 
committing sin. ''Behold, thou art made whole: sin 
no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." — Jno. 
5:14. ^'And Jesus said unto her, Xeither do I con- 
demn thee: go, and sin no more." — Jno. 8:11. 
'* Awake to righteousness, and sin not." — 1 Cor. 15:34. 

"My little children, these things write I unto yon, 
that ye sin not." — 1 Jno. 2:1. We have here four 
positive commandments forbidding us to commit sin. 
If therefore we adhere to the doctrine of holiness- 
opposers that we can not live without committing sin, 
we shall have to take the stand that we can not obey 
the Bible, and such a stand would bring us into a 
greater dilemma; for in 2 Thess. 1 :7-9 we are told that 
when Christ shall come, he will take "vengeance on 
them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel 
of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with 
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, 
and from the glory of his power." From this we are 
to understand that all those who obey not the gospel of 
Christ are to be cast into hell. Therefore if no man 
can obey the gospel, which we have seen requires us to 
live without committing sin, all men will be cast into 
hell, and heaven will contain no representatives from 
this world. This is a horrible idea, but it is only a 
scriptural analysis of the doctrine taught by the oppos- 
ers of holiness. And what is still worse, their doctrine 



262 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

reproaches God, making him an inconsistent God ; for 
if he has commanded us to do something we can not do 
(which he did when he commanded us to sin not, ac- 
cording to the holiness-opposers' doctrine), and will 
then send us to hell for not doing it, he is a cruel, in- 
consistent tyrant. But such is not true of God. He 
is a merciful and consistent God; therefore does not 
require anything of us that we are unable by his grace 
to perform. We can therefore live without commit- 
ting sin, according to his requirements. 

But we are not to think that an unconverted person 
can live without committing sin; for the Bible tells us 
plainly that they have ''eyes full of adultery and that 
can not cease from sin." — 2- Pet. 2:14. Jesus also 
taught that a corrupt tree can not bring forth good 
fruit Matt. 7:18. By this he meant that a sinner 
can not live without committing sin. Holiness-oppos- 
ers are all unconverted people, and it is unques- 
tionably from a standpoint of their own experience that 
they speak when they say there is no man who can live 
without committing sin. 

If we should admit that Christians can not live with- 
out committing sin, we would admit that sin has 
dominion over all Christians. This would be contrary 
to another New Testament truth which we find re- 
corded in Eom. 6:14 — ''For sin shall not have domin- 
ion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under 
grace." Sin did have dominion over tlie people under 
the law, but under the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, 



Ai.L rHTLDHKX OF GOD LIVE WITHOUT SIN. 203 

(Jocrs people luive domiiiioii over sin and reign over it 
jis is taught in Rom. 5:17, where it is written: "Much 
more they which receive abundance of grace and of the 
gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus 
Christ." As God's people are not a political people, 
there is nothing in this life over Avhich they reign 
except sin; and if we would admit that they do not 
reign over sin, we would be admitting that they do not 
reign at all. But God's people do reign victoriously 
over sin; because they are set free from sin by the 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was for this intent 
that he came into the world, and it was to this that 
he referred when he said in Jno. 8:36, "If the Son 
therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." 
That God's people have perfect victory over sin is 
also taught in the sixth chapter of Romans. "What 
shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace 
may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are 
dead to sin, live any longer therein? Ktiow ye not 
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 
were baptized into his death?" — Verses 1-3. "Xow if 
we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also 
live with him: knowing that Christ l)eing raised from 
the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion 
over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; 
but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise 
reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but 
alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." — 
Verses 8-11. "For he that is dead is freed from sin." 



264 THK HETTEH TESTAMI^^NT. 

— Ver. 7. Here the apostle considers salvation in the 
light of death. Since death is a perfect liberation 
from all things pertaining to this life, it is the most 
beautiful figure that could have been employed to set 
forth the idea that salvation is a separation from the 
wickedness of this world. Christians therefore are as 
free from committing sin, according to Paul's teach- 
ing, as he that is dead physically is freed from every 
avocation of this life. Well did the apostle ask, '^How 
shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" 
Let us now turn our attention to some texts which 
declare emphatically that all Christians do live without 
committing sin. "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth 
not: whosover sinneth hath not seen him, neither 
known him." — 1 Jno. 3:6. "Whosoever is born of 
God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in 
him: and he can not sin, because he is born of God." 
— Ver. 9. "We know that whosoever Is born of God 
sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepetli 
himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." — 1 
Jno. 5:18. The expressions "in him" and "born of 
God" in these texts signify the same thing. We have 
here therefore three plain declarations that all who are 
born of God live without committing sin. And as 
none are Christians except those who are born of God, 
our propos-ition, that all Christians live without com- 
mitting sin, is bound to the New Testament with a 
threefold cord. So the doctrine of holiness-opposers is 
refuted. They affirm that all Christians commit sin, but 



ALL CHILDREN OF GOD LtVE WITHOUT SlK. '20-1 

the word of God affirms that all Christians live without 
committing sin; an^ as the good Book instructs us to 
**let God be true, but every man a liar" (Eom. 3:4), I 
snail turn the lie upon them and take my stand upon 
God's word and publish to the world that none are 
Christians except those who live without commit- 
ting sill. 

In conclusion I will call attention to some plain 
texts which place all who commit sin on the devii'.s 
side. ''Jesus answered them, Yerily, verily, I say 
unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant of 
sin." — Jno. 8:34. Many of those who commit sin 
feign themselves the servants of righteousness, but they 
are deceived; because the word of God affirms that 
they are the servants of sin, and if they can at the 
same time be the servants of righteousness, they can 
serve two masters, a thing which Jesus declares no man 
can do. See Matt. 6:24. "He that committeth sin is 
of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. 
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that 
he might destroy the works of the devil." — 1 Jno. 3:8. 
This is very plain. Comments could not make it 
plainer. If we therefore should adhere to the holiness- 
opposers' saying, that everybody commits sin more or 
less every day, we would be acknow^ledging that every- 
body belongs to the devil and that God has no chil- 
dren upon the face of the earth. Oh, that God may 
by any means open the eyes of the opposers of the 
doctrine of holiness. 



266 THE BETTER TESTAMBNTT. 

WHAT IS COMMITTING SIX? 



'* Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the 
law: for sin is the transgression of the law." — 1 Jno. 
3:4. This text sets forth the only manner in which a 
sin may be committed. There is no sin except it be a 
transgression of the law, and ''where no law is, there 
is no transgression." — Rom. 4:15. "Sin is not im- 
puted where there is no law." — Rom. 5:13. In differ- 
ent ages of the world sin has been imputed from differ- 
ent standards of law. 

AYhen God created man he placed every principle oi 
righteousness in his conscience. This is all the law 
he gave him, save the single injunction concerning the 
eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 
Xo other law was needed, because the law of his con- 
science was perfect. He had no written law. The 
standard against which Adam sinned was the injunc- 
tion before mentioned and the law of righteousness in 
his conscience. 

After the fall of man there was no written law for 
many hundred years. During this period the only law 
liOm which sin was imputed was the law of man's con- 
science, which became weaker as man grew more 
wicked, until it possessed but a very small portion of 
the original law of tlie conscience. 

The law of Moses was the first written law that was 
given to man. It contained many righteous principles 
that had been effaced from man's conscience by habit- 



WHAT IS COMMrXTTNG SIN? '207 

iial sinning. It is the standard by which sin was 
imputed among the Jews from Moses to Christ. Hut 
as the hiw enjoined no other nation, among the Gen- 
tiles of the law dispensation sin continued to be re^jk- 
oned from the standard of the law of the conscience. 
Rom. 2:14, 15. 

Jesus' law is the perfect restoration to man of the 
origiiial law of the conscience. It contains every prin- 
ciple of righteousness, and, by means of the Holy 
Spirit, its every principle of righteousness is restored 
to our conscience. A sin in the present dispensation 
is the violation of some part of the law of Chritt, 
except among such nations as have never known the 
law of Christ, among wliom the conscience still con- 
tinues to be the standard from which sin is reckoned. 
The law of Jesus is the first perfect law that has been 
revealed unto man since the fall; and as it contains 
every principle of righteousness, it has been justly 
written by the apostle, "All unrighteousness is sin." 
— 1 Jno. 5:17. The law of Moses could not make that 
declaration, because every unrighteous thing was not 
condemned in it; as, for instance, the hating of an 
enemy. But every unrighteous thing is forbidden in 
the Xew Testament; hence, under it, every unright- 
eous act is a sin; that is, every act that is unrighteous 
in its nature is a sin. 

Sin is always a willful transgression of God's law. 
This idea is sustained in the teachings of Christ. He 
says in Jno. 15:22-24, ''If I had not come and spoken 



268 THE BETTER TESTA>II:nT. 

unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have 
no cloak for their sin. ... If I had not done among 
them the works which none other man did, they had 
not had sin: but r.ow have they both seen and hated 
both me and my Father." This language of the 
Savior shows that there were certain things the Jews 
might have done before they had heard his teaching 
that would not have been sin unto them which would, 
since he threw light upon them, be sin unto them. 
Here is a proof that sin is a willful transgression. 

Again in Jno. 9:39-41 we read: "And Jesus said. 
For judgment I am come into this world, that they 
which see not might see; and that they which see 
might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees 
which were with him heard these words, and said unto 
him. Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them. If ye 
were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, 
We see; therefore your sin remaineth." This is a 
clearer proof than the one previously quoted that sin is 
always a willful transgression. He says to the Phari- 
sees, ''If ye were blind, ye should have no sin"; that 
is, If ye possessed no light at all upon your duty to 
God, ye should have no sin, no matter what evil thing 
you might do; bat now since ye say. We see; that is, 
since ye understand God's law concerning you, ye are 
guilty for the transgression of his law. 

Under the Old Testament there was a sin in igno- 
rance, as the reader may see by turning to Lev. 4:*^, 
13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15; Xum. 15:24, 27-29. The sin in 



WHAT IS COMMITIIXG SIN? 260 

ignorance never cut a man off from among the people 
of God; hence it was generally what would be termed 
under the New Testament, an error in judgment. The 
law of Moses was so complicated that doubtless God 
had to pronounce the ignorant or accidental transgres- 
sion of sonje of its ceremonies a sin, in order to keep 
all its injunctions fresh in their minds. In the Xew 
Testament the same thing would be termed a mere 
error in judgment, a fault. Jas. 5:16; Gal. 6:1. A 
sinful act may, under the Xew Testament, be to some 
degree mingled with ignorance, as in the case of Paul 
(1 Tim. 1:13), and of the persecutors of Christ (Acts 
3:17): but an act must be done, to a degree, against 
light and knowledge, or it would incur no condemna- 
tion; and as we have stated above, an act purely in 
ignorance would not be a sin under the Xew Testa- 
ment. So when we say we are saved from commit- 
ting sin, we mean that we are saved from commit- 
ting willful transgressions of God's law. 

An explanation is necessary here, to prevent the 
reader from getting the idea that our salvation from 
sin under the New Testament is no more than could 
be lived to by the grace obtained under the Old Testa- 
ment. I have before shown that under the Old Testa- 
ment men could not obtain grace to refrain, at all 
times, from willful sin — they would sometimes be over- 
come by the power of sin beneath which they were 
held; but under the New Testament we have power to 
refrain from committing everything we know to be 



270 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

wrong, and to do everything we are required to do in 
the perfect gospel of Christ. Only in thoughtless 
hours will a saved man, under the New Testament, do 
something that is forbidden, or leave undone any- 
thing that is commanded in the Xew Testament. 

A still further explanation is necessary. When we 
take all things into consideration, we find that there 
is only a certain class of wrongs that a saved man, 
under the New Testament, ma} commit by mistake. 
As the natural laws of righteousness are restored to our 
conscience by the grace of God, we are Avithin our- 
selves a New Testament so far as pertains to the nat- 
ural laws of righteousness that are contained in it. 
The power of the Holy Spirit has removed from our 
nature every element that is antagonistic to any of these 
natural principles of righteousness, and the power of 
the Holy Spirit prevents our doing anything contrary to 
these principles of righteousness; therefore we will 
never, by mistake, commit a trespass against any of the 
natural principles of righteousness, such as committing 
adultery, swearing profanely, lying, cheating, stealing, 
etc. Neither willfully or ignorantly will a saved man 
ever do anv of these thinsrs. 

The mistakes that we make pertain only to those com- 
mandments in the New Testament which would prop- 
erly be styled ceremonial; as, for instance, God com- 
mands an evangelist not to receive an accusation 
against an elder but before two or three witnesses. 1 
Tim. 5:19. The evangelist might forget himself some- 



WHAT IS COMMITTING SIX? 271 

times and receive the accusation before he had called 
his witnesses. In this he would unthoaghtedly trans- 
gross a command in God's law; but this would not be 
a transgression of a commandment that contains a 
moral in its nature. Our fallibility will sometimes 
cause us to make some such mistakes, but outside of 
those commandments in the Xew Testament which are 
ceremonial in nature and do not contain natural prin- 
ciples of righteousness, a saved man will never trans- 
gress the Xew Testament by mistake. 

A sinner will sometimes transgress the laws of right- 
eousness contained in the 'New Testament when in a 
state of unconsciousness, as when asleep or delirious, 
as when his body is ravished by disease. He will some- 
times profane God's holy nam or commit other acts 
that are impure in their moral nature. This is be- 
cause the wicked elements are in him, and they cause 
his lips to frame oaths or his body to commit impure 
acts when he is entirely innocent so far as his knowl- 
edge is concerned. The same things might liave 
oncurred with any who worshiped God under the Old 
Testament; because, as has been previously explained, 
they still possessed impurities in their moral nature. 
But the saved man under the Xew Testament has all 
these wicked elements purged out of his nature, and 
he will never do a thing that is morally wrong in its 
nature, when in a state of unconsciousness, or con- 
sciousness. It means more to be saved from commit- 
ting sin than many people think. 



212 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

HOLIXESS-OPPOSERS DRIVEN FROM THE 
NEW TESTAMENT. 



It yet remains to explain some texts in the New 
Testament in which holiness-opposers feel themselves 
securely anchored. I do not think I am deceived when 
I say I have in this volume impregnated the mind of 
the reader with scriptural truths, beneath the hammer 
of which the fortifications of those who oppose holiness 
melt away like the morning dew beneath the rays of 
the rising sun. 

Holiness-opposers will doubtless see the reasonable- 
ness of my disposition of their favorite texts in the Old 
Testament, but will feel themselves safely grounded 
upon some New Testament texts. It therefore be- 
comes my duty to take up the class of New Testament 
texts an unbeliever in holiness would use to substanti- 
ate his views, and show how in the true light of the 
Bible they fall in line with the uniform voice of the 
scriptures, to proclaim the doctrine of holiness. I 
shall begin with the seventh chapter of Romans. This 
is usually the first reference holiness-opposers give us. 
I quote verses 14 to 25, numbering the verses for con- 
venience. 

ROMANS 7: 14-25. 

14. "For w^e know that the law is spiritual : but I am 
carnal, sold under sin. 

15. For that which I do I allow not: for what I 
would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 



OPPOSEKS DKIVEl^ FKOM NEW TESTAMENT. 273 

16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent 
unto the law that it is good. 

17. Xow then it is no more I that do it, but sin that 
dwelleth in me. 

18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) 
dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; 
but how to perform that which is good I find not. 

19. For the good that I would I do not: but the 
evil which I would not, that I do. 

20. Xow if I do that I would not, it is no more I 
that ^o it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 

21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, 
evil is present with me. 

22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward 
man: 

23. But I see another law in my members, warring 
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into 
captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 

24. wretched man that I am! who shall deliver 
me from the body of this death? 

25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; 
but with the flesh the law of sin." 

There will arise no diversity of opinion between the 

antagonizers of the doctrine of holiness and myself in 

regard to the sentiments of the foregoing. I believe 

the most literal interpretation to be the correct one. 

I believe that when Paul willed to do good and did it 

not, and willed not to do evil and yet did it, he com- 

» 



274 THE BETTKK TESTAMENT. 

mitted sin. I believe also that when he spoke of sin 
dwelling in him, he meant just what he said. The only 
point of controversy is in regard to the time to which 
the apostle refers; whether he was relating his experi- 
ence at the time of his writing, or a former experience. 
In the eighteenth verse he says, "I know that in me 
(that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing." 
These words, to my mind, show that he is relating his 
experience before he had obtained salvation; for surely 
no saved man would say he had no good thing in him. 
What he would he did not; that is, he left undone 
things he knew" he ought to have done. What he did 
he would not; that is, he did things he knew he ought 
not to have done. He had sin dwelling in him, and 
had no good thing in him. This is just the experience 
the modern opposers of holiness claim to have. I do 
not marvel that they cling so tenaciously to this scrip- 
ture. But such is not the experience of a Ghri^:ian, 
and it is evident that Paul is here relating his expe- 
rience before he became a Christian. If w^e can sustain 
this position, we will demolish one Xew Testament 
fortification of the opposers of holiness. Verses 24, 25 
seem to throw some light on this point. After utter- 
ing the lamentable words in verse 24: "0 wretched 
man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of 
this death?" he answers in verse 25: "J thank God 
through Jesus Christ our Lord." These words very 
clearly show that the apostle finally received a deliver- 
ance from the ''law of sin" (carnal nature) which w^as 



0PPU8EKS DRIVEN FROM XKW TESTAMENT. 'Z^ 

ill liis members, else what is the signitication of this 
exultant expression. 

That PaaPs experience in the seventh chapter of 
Eomans was not his experience at the time of writing 
is clearly proved in the first few verses of the eighth 
chapter. "There is therefore now no condemnation to 
them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the 
flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of 
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of 
sin and death. For what the law could not do, in 
that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his 
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, 
condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of 
the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit."— Kom. 8:1-4. 

After Paul had thanked God that there was deliver- 
ance from the law of sin which was in his members, in 
the last verse of the previous chapter, he affirmed with 
liis next breath, in the first sentence of this last quota- 
tion :"There is therefore now no condemnation to them 
which are in Christ Jesus." Surely the reader can see 
in this tliat my position is orthodox. It seems to me 
that Paul states as clearly as language will convey 
a thought, that he had just been relating an expe- 
rience which he had before he got into Christ, and that 
he had now obtained a better experience. If those 
who arc now in Christ are free from condemnation, 
they do not commit sin. And if Paul was in Christ 
when he wrote the epistle to the Eomans, the experi- 



276 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

once he relates in the seventh chapter of Eomans, in 
which he shows conclusively that he had committed 
sin, was not his experience at the time of his writing. 

There is another expression in this quotation that I 
wish to call attention to. It is this: ''What the law 
could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, 
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful 
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Here 
a beautiful contrast is drawn between the weakness of 
the law and the saving power of the gospel. AVhy 
should such language be found in this place, if it is 
not intended to show that the sad experience just 
related in the previous chapter pertained to the law 
and not to the gospel? 

The conclusions therefore to be drawn from my 
arguments are these. 

1. In the seventh chapter of Romans Paul relates his 
experience before he became a Christian. In the 
eighth chapter he relates his experience after he 
became a Christian. 

2. In the seventh chapter of Eomans he relates his 
eperience under the law. In the eighth chapter he 
relates his experience under the gospel. I believe 
these arguments are unanswerable. 

We will now turn to the third chapter of Romans. 
Holiness-opposers use chiefly verse 10, which says, 
''Tliere is none righteous, no, not one"; and verse 12, 
which says, "There is none that doeth .s^ood, no, not 
one." It would not be a misrepresentation of their 



OPPOSEKS DRIVEN FROM "S E\V TESTAMENT. 2tt 

application of these texts to sum it up as follows: 
"These texts apply to all people in every state and 
condition, and in every age of the world. Therefore 
there is not, never was, and never will be a man on 
earth who is truly righteous and lives without commit- 
ting sin." This is not the exact sentiment of all the 
opposers of holiness, especially those who believe in a 
Millennium, but it is their general belief. I hold that 
these texts do not apply to Christian people, and will 
proceed to prove my position. 

Paul begins the chapter before us with these words : 
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit 
is there of circumcision?" These words may be con- 
sidered an index to the entire chapter; for throughout 
it is but a treatise on the state of the Jewish people in 
comparison to the state of the Gentile world. First, 
in verse 2 it is shown that the Jews have some advan- 
tages over the Gentiles, "because that unto them were 
committed the oracles of God." Then in verse 9 the 
consideration of their moral condition begins with the 
words "What then? are we [Jews] better than they 
[Gentiles]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved 
both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin." 
The apostle here states emphatically that the Jews are 
no better than the Gentiles, but that all are under sin. 
To prove his position, he proceeds to introduce a quo- 
tation from the scriptures. The words, "As it is 
written," standing at the head of the text under con- 
sideration shows that it is a quotation from the Old 



278 THK HETTEK TESTAMENT. 

Testament. The quotation is found in the fourteenth 
Psalm. A part of it is omitted in the authorized 
version, but in the LXX. it stands just as it is quoted 
by Paul. I will insert the quotation of Paul and Ps. 
14:1-3 as it stands in the LXX., in p*\rallel columns. 

Paul's Quotation. The Same in the LXX. 

As it is written, * 'There is none **- ''There is none that does 

righteous, no, not one; there is goodness, there i*^ not even so 

none that understandeth, there much ivs one. The Lord looked 

is none that seeketh after God. down from heaven ir^on the sons 

They are all gone out of the way, of men, to see if there were any 

they are together become unprof- that understood, or sought after 

itable; there is none that doeth God. They are all gone out of 

good, no, not one. Their throat the way, they arc together be- 

is an open sepulcher; with their come good for nothing, there is 

tongues they have used deceit; none that does good, no not one. 

the poison of asps is under their Their throat is an open sepulcher; 

lips: whose mouth is full of curs- with their tongues they have used 

ing and bitterness: their feet are deceit; the | oison of asps is under 

swift to shed blood: destruction their lips: whose mouth is full of 

and misery are in their ways: cursing and bitterness; their feet 

and the way of peace have they are swift to shed blood: destruc- 

not known: there is no fear of tion and misery are in their ways; 

God before their eyes.^^ — Rom. and the way of peace have they 

3: 10-18. not known: there is no fear uf 

God before their eyes." 

This quotation was employed by Paul to prove to the 
Jew by the very writings which he acknowledged to be 
inspired, that he was as truly under the power of sin, 
and was as much in need of the salvation for which Jesus 
atoned as the Gentile. He was not speaking of those 
who are saved in the new dispensation. That the 
text the apostle here- quotes from the old scriptures, 
has exclusive reference to those who lived under the 
Old Testament is proved by his own words immedi- 
ately following the quotation: "Xow we know that 



OPPOSKKS J>ntVi:N KUOM SEW TESTAMENT. 279 

what things soever the hiw saith, it saith to them who 
are under the law." — Yer. 19. I hold that further 
comments are unnecessary to drive the opposers of 
holiness from the third chapter of Romans. 

We will next turn our attention to the words of 
Christ to the rich young man, in Matt. 19:16, 17. 
"And, beliold, one came and said unto him, Good 
Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have 
eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou 
me good? there is none good but one, that is, (rod: 
but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the command- 
ments " This text holiness-f.pposers hold to be irrec- 
oncilable to the doctrine of holiness. It is true that 
the expression, ''There is none good but one, that is, 
God," is extremely difficult to harmonize with the 
lioliness sentiments of the Xew Testament, to one who 
can not discern the distinction between the two testa- 
ments. But when we have become acquainted with 
the fact that under the Old Testament no one could 
live free from committing sin, and that the obtaining 
of salvation from sin dates biick only to the coming of 
Christ, we can easily understand this scripture. 

The young man who came to Christ was a Jew, 
therefore had been brought up to believe the doctrine 
of the Old Testament, which taught that there were 
none strictly good but God. Jesus knew the belief of 
the young man, and when he approached him with the 
salutation, "Good Master," he drove him into a corner 
with words which might be interpreted as follows: 



280 THE BETTER TESTAMEN'T. 

*'Why callest thou me good, since, according to the 
doctrine of the Jews, there is none good but God? 
If you call me good and still adhere to the doctrine of 
the Jews, you must admit that I am God. If you do 
not acknowledge me to be God, and yet maintain that 
I am good, you are acknowledging the doctrine I am 
just now publishing to the world, under which men 
become 'good men.' " Matt. 12:35. This is undoubt- 
edly the true mind of the Spirit in this text. 

The holiness-fighter has yet one text behind which 
he feels himself safely fortified, but the hailstones of 
Bible truth will drive him from his last hiding-place. 
I refer to 1 Jno. 1:8. It reads: *'If we say that we 
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not 
in us." These words may be easily understood if w^e 
turn our attention for a short time to the context, to 
find out what kind of people John is addressing. In 
verse 4 he says, ''And these things write we unto 
you, that your joy may be full." According to these 
words John was addressing a class of people who pos- 
sessed joy but not the fullness of joy; that is, they had 
obtained one work of grace, but not the second; or in 
other words they were justified but not sanctified. In 
the seventh verse John held up before them the expe- 
rience of sanctification, with the words "If we walk in 
the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one 
with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son 
cleanseth us from all sin." Then follow the words of 
our text, "If we say that we have no sin [we who are 



THE BETTKR SAKCTlFrCATION. 281 

only justified, sin in its inherited form being yet 
in us], we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not 
in us." 

With this I conclude, believing that those who 
desire to oppose the doctrine of holiness are driven 
from the Bible to obtain argument. 



THE BETTER SANOTIFICATIOK 



''For the law having a shadow of good things to 
come, and not the very image of the things, can never 
with those sacrifices which they offered year by year 
continually make the comers thereunto perfect." — 
Heb. 10:1. The ''good things to come" mentioned in 
this text are the victories of the New Testament, of 
which all the Levitical services, as has been explained 
in a previous chapter, were shadows. They are not 
the very image of these glories, but shadows merely. 
An image is something carved out of wood, metal, or 
stone to represent perfectly the features as well as the 
form of the object it is intended to represent: but a 
shadow is a mere dark spot, showing only the outline 
of the object. The old system being but a shadow of 
i;he glories of the new dispensation, could not, the 
apostle tells us, make those who worshiped under it 
perfect, especially since it had such inferior sacrifices. 

But what is the perfection that could not be wrought 
by the law? There are various kinds of perfection. 



28;^ THE BETTi5R tl5Sf AMtJKl". 

There is an absolute perfection, possessed by God 
only: there is also an angelic perfection, an Adamic 
perfection, and a resurret3tion perfection; but neither 
of these is the perfection mentioned here. In the 
verse immediately following our text the apostle shows 
that had the Levitical offerings been able to perfect 
those who worshiped under that system, they would 
not have been continually offered; because he adds, 
*'Tbe >v' orshipers once purged should have had no more 
conscience of sins." Observe how the expression 
changes from perfection in the first verse, to purging the 
conscience in the second. From this we see the nature 
of the perfection that could not be obtained under 
the law of Moses. If we drop down to the fourteenth 
verse, we find this perfection more clearly defined. 
"For by one offering he hath perfected forever them 
that are sanctified." If, as this text states, those who 
are sanctified are perfected forever, sanctification is 
perfection; and since this verse forms th'e context 
to the one quoted above, we regard it as an explana- 
tion of the perfection under consideration. There- 
fore sanctification is the perfection that was not 
obtainable under the law of Moses. 

But while this sublime experience could not be ob- 
tained under the Old Testament, we must observe in 
the text quoted last that provision is made in the death 
of Christ whereby it may be obtained; for it says, 
''By one offering he [Christ] hath perfected forever 
them that are sanctified." The proof that sanctifica- 



*H>: BETTER SANCTIFTCATiON. 2S*J 

tion is in the atonement is the strongest argument that 
we could offer to substantiate the fact that it is obtain- 
able in the Christian dispansation. If Christ died for 
our sanctjncation, then all who live in the Christian 
dispensation may enjoy the experience of sanctifica- 
tion; because he died for all, and all for whom he died 
may possess all for which he died. 

In Heb. 10:9, 10 it is again taught that Christ atoned 
for our sanctification. ''Then said he, Lo, I come to 
do thy will, God. He taketh away the first, that he 
may establish the second. By the which will we are 
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus 
Christ once for all." The will of God which Christ 
here affirms that he came to do is the death upon the 
cross; for it was God's will that he should die for the 
world. As a proof that Christ's death was the will of 
God he here speaks of having come to perform, we 
might call attention to the words "He taketh away the 
first that he may establish the second." These words 
show that at the time he did the will of God ho took 
away the first covenant and established the second. 
This change, according to the tenor of the whole Xew 
Testament, took place at Christ's death. Therefore 
Christ's death is unquestionably the will of God re- 
ferred to in this text, and Paul adds that by this will 
"we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Je- 
sus Christ." This is still stronger proof that the will 
of God mentioned here is the offering of Christ's body 
upon the cross, and proves conclusively that sanctifica- 
tion is in the atonement. 



284 tUE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

Again, in Heb. 13:12 we read: '' Wherefore Jesus 
also, that he might sanctify the people with his own 
blood, suffered without the gate." We need not add 
comments to this text; for the construction of the 
language is its own best interpreter. It simply states 
that Jesus suffered that he might sanctify the people. 

Again, we read in Eph. 5:25-27: '' Husbands, love 
3^our wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and 
gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse 
it with the washing of water by the word, that he 
might present it to himself a glorious church, not 
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that 
it should be holy and without blemish." Here it is 
again plainly stated that Christ died for our sanctitica- 
tion; comments would add nothing to its plainness. 

Further evidences are unaecessary to establish the 
fact in every candid mind that the shedding of the 
blood of Christ upon the cross was to purchase our 
sanctification. It is therefore beyond the bounds of 
reason for any man to affirm that sanctification is not 
to be obtained in the new dispensation. 

The reader will perhaps remember that it has been 
shown in a previous chapter that Christ died for all 
human* creatures — past, present, and future. When I 
made that statement I did not mean to say that Christ 
died to purchase for those who had died before his 
coming, a salvation to be obtained by them at some 
later date, in another world, but simply that he had in 
his death paid for the salvation of those who had in 



THE BETTEii sanctificatio:n^. 285 

the old dispensation received the salvation of their 
day. I have shown that he died for transgressions 
that were under the first testament, but I can not find 
a single text which states that he died for the sanctifi- 
cation of those who lived under the Old Testament. 
It is therefore evident that sanctification was not re- 
ceived on credit in the old dispensation, as was the 
pardon of sins. 

It might be said that Christ died for the sanctifica- 
tion of the saints in the old dispensation in one sense. 
It has always been God's law that without holiness no 
man shall see the Lord; therefore, those who lived 
under the Old Testament, being unable by any conai- 
tions God had ordained to obtain the experience of 
sanctification, must of necessity have obtained this 
experience like infants of to-day, unconditionally, as 
they passed out of this world, and of course the blood 
of Christ must have paid the ransome on their experi- 
ence. But that his death paid for the experience of 
sanctification received by them under the law and 
lived in this life is unscriptural. 

I will add yet one text in proof that sanctification is 
obtainable under ihe Xew Testament. "For the law 
made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better 
hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." — 
Ileb. 7:19. The "better hope" mentioned here is the 
blessed gospel hope which we have in the Xew Testa- 
ment. There is an idea contained in this verse that 
opposers of the doctrine of holiness have never 



•280 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

grasped, "The law perfected [sanctified] uotliiug, 
but the bringing in of a better hope did.'' It is 
nearly two thousand years since that better hope was 
brought in. Since that time sanctification lias been 
obtainable. Holiness-opposers are two thousand years 
behind the times. They would have been orthodox 
teachers had they lived before the coming of the 
Savior, but since it is their lot to spend their life of 
probation on the earth in the sublime age in which full 
salvation is obtained, they are the propagators of error. 

By the time the reader has followed me thus far, he 
will doubtless wonder why the Avord sanctification is so 
extensively employed by Moses and the prophets, if 
that experience could not be obtained in the Old Tes- 
tament dispensation. This is a thought worthy indeed 
of special consideration; because from an exterior view 
it would appear that the writings of Paul contradict 
the teachings of the Old Testament. Paul, as we have 
seen, affirms boldly that sanctification could not be 
obtained under the law; yet we find it written in the 
law, ''Ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye 
shall be holy; for I am holy." — Lev. 11:44. In many 
other texts in the Old Testament we find similar ex- 
pressions. The only avoidance of a contradiction is 
the recognition of the fact that sanctification in the Old 
Testament was not the same as sanctification in the 
Xew Testament. 

The word sanctification has two definitions in lexi- 
cons, a negative and a positive definition. The negii- 



THE BETTER SA XCTIFICATIOX. 28T 

live definition is to set apait, to consecrate. This is 
tlio signification of sanctification in the Old Testament. 
The positive definition is to make sacred or holy. 
This is the New Testament signification of this word. 
W'^hen Paul affirms that sanctification could not bo 
obtained under the law, he is speaking from the stand- 
point of New Testament sanctification; henco the Old 
and Xew Testaments do not confiict. 

The literal signification of sanctification might be 
stated as follows: a mal'iag holy. The Old Testament 
because of the w^eakness of its sacrifices could but 
make a weak negative effort at accomplishing this for 
man by setting him apart, through certain outward 
ceremonies, for the service of God. The Xew Testa- 
ment through the om.nipotent blood of th? Son of God 
bestows a positive sanctification — cleansing of the heart 
from all sin — upon every believer w^ho m^'e-s the condi- 
tions of full consecration to the Avill of God. 

As a proof that the sanctification of the Old Testa- 
ment was negative and that of the Xew^ Testament 
positive, I might call attention to the fact that under 
the Old Testament, sanctification was performed by 
man through some ceremony, but in the Xew Testa- 
ment it is performed by the Spirit of God. See 2 
Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2; Eom. 15:16. 

The sanctifications of the two testaments are beauti- 
ftilly contrasted in Heb. 9:18, 14': ''For if the blood 
of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an hoifer 
sprinkling the unclcnn, .sn.'tifieth to the purifying of 



288 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, 
who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without 
spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works 
to serve the living (^od." In this text it is plainly 
stated that the Old Testament sanctiiication was of the 
flesh, and the New Testament sanctification is a purg- 
ing of the conscience from dead works. The phrase 
"of the flesh" in this text signifies something outward. 
The sanctification of the Old Testament being but a 
purification of the flesh was but a ceremonial or nega- 
tive sanctiflcation. But as the sanctification of the 
New Testament is a purging of the conscience from 
dead works, it must be a positive cleansing of the 
heart. The dead works purged away in Xew Testa- 
ment sanctification are the abnormal propensities and 
inward inclinations to evil inherited from the fall 
of Adam. 

In 1 Jno. 1 :7 Xew Testament sanctification is beau- 
tifully and comprehensibly described as follows: ''But 
if we w^alk in the light, as he is in the light, we have 
fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus 
Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." The senti- 
ment of this precious declaration is within the compre- 
hension of all rational minds. All can see that if the 
blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, no sin 
remains in us after this cleansing has been received, 
buch is the sanctification that could not be received 
under the law, but is offered to all in the gospel 
dispensation. 



HOLY MEN OF THE OLD DISPENSATION. 289 

HOLY AND PERFECT MEX OF THE OLD 
DISPEXSATION. 

The question will naturally arise in the mind of the 
reader, after he has finished reading the preceding 
cliapter, Why are the worthy Old Testament characters 
so lepeatedly designated by the adjectives holy and 
perfect^ if none of them received a perfect cleansing 
from sin? These seeaiing obstacles at first sight appear 
to refute the subject of this volume, but a more care- 
ful consideration harmonizes them with the ideas I 
have advanced. Job was truly called *'a perfect and 
an upright man." — Job 1:8. Xoah was also ''a just 
man and perfect." — O^en. 6:9. But there are various 
kinds of perfection ; therefore the mere fact that they 
are called perfe«;t men is not sufficient to prove them 
to have been perfect in the sense of having been 
cleansed from all sin according to the standard of New 
Testament perfection. It is not unreasonable to sup- 
pose that they possessed perfection in another sphere. 

A careful study of the sacred volume reveals a mod- 
ification upon the perfection of all the Old Testament 
saints. The Bible does not say Xoah was a perfect 
man, without the special modification "in his genera- 
tions"; Avhich show^s that he was perfect only accord- 
ing to the privileges of his day, which I have shown 
to have been far beneath the standard of the Xew 
Testament. Job testifies concerning himself, "If I 
justify mvself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if 

19 



290 THE BETTKK TKSTAMtXT. 

I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. 
Though I were perfect, yet would 1 not know my soul: 
I would despise my life." — Job. 9:20, 21. Job was 
surely speaking here of being made perfect in the sense 
of being made free from sin, and it is very clt-ar that 
he did not profess to have attained to such perfection. 
His perfection was like Xoah's — ''in his generations." 
The perfection of Abraham, and of all those who died 
before the coming of Christ, is to be viewed in the same 
light Hs the perfection of Xoah and Job. 

Let us now consider the adjective holy in its applica- 
tion to the people of r^od who lived under the Old 
Testament. They are repeatedly called holy in the Old 
Testament, and even the Xew Testament writers some- 
times call them "holy men" and "holy women." 
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of 
man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ohost."— 2 Pet. 1:21. "For after this 
manner in the old time the holy itwmen also, wlio 
trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection 
unto their own husbands." — 1 Pet. 3:5*. 

It will doubtless yet be a wonder unto many why the 
Bible calls the faithful ones who lived before the death 
of Christ holy, since nobody could receive a cleansing 
from all sin at that time. I believe that by the help of the 
Holy Spirit I can solve this mystery. The words holy 
and sanctiiied are synonymous; hence you can use them 
interchangeably in every text where they refer to a 
state of holiness, without destroying the sense. We 



HOLY MEN OF THE OLD DISPENSATION. 291 

have seen that sanctified in the Old Testament does not 
have the same meaning that it does in the Xevv Testa- 
ment; that in the Old Testament it simply means set 
apart or consecrated for the service of God, while in 
the New Testament it means to be cleansed from all 
sin. The word holy^ therefore, being synonymous with 
the word sanctified^ must also have a difference of sig- 
nification in the two testaments; that, is, it must in the 
Old Testament, like the word sanctified^ signify a mere 
setting apart for the service of God by a formal cere- 
mony, while in the New Testament it means to be free 
from sin. 

That the words holy and sanctified are synonymous 
in their application in the Old Testament, the reader 
may prove to his own satisfaction, by a careful investi- 
gation of all the texts in which either of these words 
are found. Things animate and inanimate are said to 
have been sanctified in the Old Testament, and in like 
manner things animate and inanimate are called holy. 
Israel was a '*holy people." Deut. 20:19. Elisha 
was called '*an holy man of God." 2 Kings 4:9. 
Among inanimate things the Israelites had "holy 
water" (Num. 5:17), holy anointing oil (Ex. 30:25), 
holy salA>aths (Ex. 10:23), holy convocations (Lev. 
23:2-8), holy vessels (2 Chron. 5:5). The ground 
upon which Moses stood when God talked to him from 
the burning bush was holy. Ex. 3:5. So also was the 
tabernacle holy, and the city of Jerusalem, the land of 
Canaan, and every place and thing in any way rendorod 
sacred by any religious ceremony or circumstance. 



292 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

I might here observe that the words holy and sancti- 
fied are employed in a few instances by the New Testa- 
ment writers with their negative signification when 
speaking of inanimate things. Peter calls the mount 
of transfiguration "the holy mount." — 2 Pet. 1:18. 
Paul speaks of the sanctification of our daily fuod. 1 
Tim. 4:5. In these texts the words sanctified and holy 
signify a mere negative sanctification; that is, a con- 
secration or setting apart, because inanimate things 
can not receive a positive sanctification. 

The Old and ^ew Testament significations of the 
terms holy and sanctified may be summed up as fol- 
lows: when applied to inanimate things, either in the 
Old or the New Testament, they have their negative 
signification, but when applied to the people, in the 
Old Testament they have the negative signification, 
but in the New Testament they have their positive 
signification, which the previous cha})ter has proved 
to be a perfect cleansing from all sin. 

There is yet another word frequently applied to the 
worthies of the Old Testament dispensation, a consid 
eration of which claims a place in this chapter. From 
the time that the oldest books in the Bible Avere writ- 
ten, God called his people sai7its. It might be won- 
dered why the servants of the Lord under the Old 
Testament were called saint.^^ if they could not in 
those days obtain a perfect cleansing from all sin. But 
this mystery is solved in the same manner as we have 
explained the words holy and sanctiiied. In fart the 



nOLTSESS OUR ONLY HOPE OF HEAVEIST. 203 

word saint resolves itself into these terms by its own 
definition. It means a hol\% or sanctified, person. 
Therefore, the explanations given above of the terms 
holy and sanctified explain both the Old and New Testa- 
ment significations of the word saint. 



HOLINESS OUR ONLY HOPE OF HEAVEN. 



Before entering into a further description of the 
subject of holiness, I desire to show the distinction 
between the words sanctifi cation and holiness. They 
have sometimes, by holiness-teachers been considered 
perfect synonyms; and sometimes they have been held 
to contain a shade of difference. 

To make this matter perfectly clear to the reader I 
had better insert an analysis of the two words in all 
the parts of speech. 

Noun sanctification holiness. 

Adjective sanctified holy. 

Verb sanctify 

Participle sanctifying 

The reader will observe that in the parts of speech 
denoting action we have no form of the word holiness 
in our language. This is a proof that there is no 
action in the word holiness. But there is action in the 
word sanctification. Herein is revealed a shade of 
difference between the two words. As nouns tney are 
perfect synonyms only when applied to the state of 



294 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

holiness. Sanctification is the name of the act that 
brings ns into holiness, as well as of the state itself. 
As no action is contained in the word holiness^ it is not 
like sanctification^ the name of the act that brings into 
the state of holiness. The reader may verify these 
ideas in his mind by the use of an unabridged diction- 
ary. Wherever the state of holiness is spoken of it 
might be properly designated by either the word sanc- 
tification or the word holiiiesSy but where the act that 
brings us into the state of holiness is referred to, it can 
be properly designated only by the term sanctification. 

To avoid confusion of terms I shall hereafter use the 
word holiiiess where the state of holiness is referred to, 
and the word sanctification, where the act that brings 
us into the state of holiness is referred to. 

And now, to proceed with the subject of this chap- 
ter, Paul says, "Follow peace with all men, and holi- 
ness, without which no man shall see the Lord." — 
Tleb. 12:14. This text should be studied with the 
deepest interest. No other text should engage our 
undivided attention as this one, because it sets forth 
the only condition upon which we can see God. The 
professing Christians of the world pay more attention 
to the outward forms and ordinances of the Bible than 
they do to the obtaining of the experience of salvation. 
In this they make a fatal mistake. They misun- 
derstand the Bible. The subject of the New Testa- 
ment is holiness. It is the lesson intended to be taught 
in all the commandments of the New Testament. It 



HOLINESS OrR OKLY HOPE OF HKAVEN. 295 

is the one chief end intended to be efPected in man by 
all the discipline of the Xew Testament. This idea is 
substantiated in Heb. 12:10, where Paul states that our 
heavenly Father chastens us for our profit, ''that we 
might be partakers of his holiness."" We may do 
everything the New Testament requires us to do ex- 
cept to obtain a clean heart, and we are as though we 
had left the entire New Testament undone; because as 
the text quoted above so definitely states, without holi- 
ness no man shall see the Lord. If these words were 
comprehended by all men, there would be no holiness- 
fighters upon the earth, except there were some men 
who were void of the least desire to meet ^ the great 
Creator. 

I do not doubt that the opposers of holiness are gener- 
ally void of a knowledge of the Bible truth that men 
can not see God without holiness. But this is not the 
only text in the Bible that declares this awful truth. 
Jesus says in Matt. 5:8, ''Blessed are the pure in 
heart; for they shall see God." This is a blessed 
promise, but it contains no hope for those who are not 
pure in heart. If this text is taken in connection 
with the one quoted from Hebrews, it affords us an 
inspired definition of the word holiness. Without 
holiness no man shall see the Lorch said Paul. The pure 
in heart shall seehim^ says Jesus. By taking these two 
texts together we see that holiness signifies a pure 
heart. Therefore we are not ready to enter the pres- 
ence of God as long as an iota of impurity remains in 



206 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

our heart. Hence we should be concerued about the 
obtaining of holiness of heart more than all things 
else. I do not mean to insinuate that obedience to 
any part of the Bible will hinder the obtaining of a 
pure heart, as some foolishly affirm. We must obey 
all the commandments, and without a willingness to 
do all God has commanded we could not enter the state 
of holiness. But we should bear in mind that holiness 
is not obtained by doing certain commandments or 
ordinances < f the Bible, but after holiness is obtained, 
obedii ce t) all the Bible is necessary to retain that 
blessed ^uite. However, I do not desire to discuss this 
point here, but merely to hold up the idea before the 
reader that the seeking of holiness is the crowning 
duty of every man. 

The words of the Psalmist add further evidences of 
the idea I wish to establish in this chapter. '^Who 
shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall 
stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands 
and a pure heart."— Ps. 24:3, 4. The ''hill of the 
Lord," and "his holy place," mentioned in this text 
signify heaven. The question is therefore virtually 
asked by David, "Who shall ascend into heaven?" 
The answer is, "He that hath clean hands and a pure 
heart." The hands are the chief instruments of doing 
right or wrong. "Clean hands" is therefore a meta- 
phoric expression signifying innocence. So it is 
taught in this text that to enter heaven we must be 
innocent and pure in heart. This is in perfect har- 
mony with the texts previously quoted. 



HOLINESS OUR ONLY HOPE OF HEAVEN. 297 

*'But now being made free from sin, and become 
servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and 
the end everlasting life." — Eom. 6:22. The state 
set forth in this text in which the individual is free 
from sin, has its fruit unto holiness, and is the same 
state of purity mentioned in the texts quoted above. 
The reader will notice that the end of the man who 
has reached this state of purity is everlasting life. 
This is another proof of the idea that holiness is the 
true condition that admits us into heaven. 

'*And Adam was not deceived, but the woman be- 
ing deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstand- 
ing she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue 
in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." — 1 
Tim. 2:14, 15. Here again holiness is mentioned as 
the condition upon which heaven may be gained. The 
woman, although she was instrumental in the fall of 
man, shall be saved, says Paul, upon the condition 
that she ''continue in faith, and charity, and holiness 
with sobriety." We might conclude from this that if 
she did not continue in holiness with the rest of the 
conditions mentioned she would miss heaven. 

''And you, that were some time alienated and 
enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hatii 
he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to 
present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable 
in his sight." — Col. 1:21, 22. The condition in which 
we must be to be presentable in God's sight in the day 
of judgment is the condiJ;ion upon which we may 



298 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

enter heaven. Since therefore this text shows that we 
must be hoi}'' to be accepted in his sight in the day of 
judgment, w^e must add it to our proofs that holiness 
is the only condition upon which men can enter 
heaven. 

We have now six scriptural proofs that holiness is 
our only hope of heaven. Let no man therefore build 
up a false hope of entering heaven in a sinful state. 
God created all men to enjoy his presence in eternity, 
and therefore he created man pure ; but since he has 
fallen into sin, God can not take him into heaven 
without marring the holiness of that place, except he 
be reinstated in his original holiness. Hence we are 
told plainly in the texts I have quoted that without 
holiness no man shall see the Lord. 

God is desirous that all men should enjoy his pres- 
ence. This desire he expresses in the words, ''Be ye 
holy; for I am holy.'' He could have assigned no 
better reason for requiring us to be holy than the fact 
that he is holy, and he could have shown his desire to 
have us dwell in his presence in no better words than 
these; for if he desires us to be holy because he is 
holy, it is evident that he desires us to be holy that 
we may dwell in his presence. Heaven is a pure 
place, and notwithstanding the great love and mercy 
that God has to man, he will not have the holiness of 
heaven blotted with the presence of an unholy being; 
therefore he has eternally decreed that without holi- 
ness no man shall see the Lord. 



HOLINESS TO BE OBTAINED IN THIS LIFE. 299 

HOLINESS TO BE OBTAINED IN THIS LIFE. 



The sentiments set forth in the last chapter estab- 
lish the premises of this one. If we must obtain 
holiness before we can enter heaven, it is evident that 
we must obtain it in this life; because no change in 
our moral nature can take place after death. Solomon 
says, **If the tree fall toward the south, or toward the 
north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it 
shall be." — Eccl. 11: 3. All agree that this is spoken 
of the death of man. It must therefore be intended 
to signify that in the moral state in which man dies, 
there he shall remain. Therefore all moral prepara- 
tion of the heart must take place in this life. 

Solomon's teaching concerning the expiration of 
man's probationary state at death is verified by the 
Savior in Jno. 9 :4 : ^*I must work the works of him that 
sent me, while it is day; the night cometh when no 
man can work." Nis^ht in this text evidentlv refers to 
death, and Jesus affirms that neither himself nor any 
other man could do work in the night; therefore all 
our work must be done before the night of death over- 
takes us. So we must add this to our proofs that 
holiness must be obtained in this life. 

Some are foolishly hoping to obtain holiness at the 
second coming of Christ, but they are building upon a 
false hope; because we are told by the Kevelator that 
Christ at his second coming shall enforce the doctrine, 
''He that is unjust, let him be unjust still : and he which 



300 THE BETTER TESTAMEXT. 

is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is right- 
eous, let him be righteous still : and he that is holy, 
let him be holy still."— Eev. 22:11. This completely 
refutes the idea of obtaining holiness at or after the 
second coming of our Lord, and proves conclusively 
that we must be made holy before he comes. Death 
is the coming of Christ and the end of the world to 
each individual. Therefore upon the authority of this 
text we may affirm that holiness mast be obtained 
before death or never. 

Another proof that holiness is to be obtained in this 
life is that it is enjoined upon us in the New Testa- 
ment. In 1 Thess. 4:3 we read: ''This is the will of 
God, even your sanctification. " This text is not 
worded exactly like a commandment, but by examining 
the context we see that it is classed as such. ''Further- 
more then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you 
by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how 
ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would 
abound more and more. For ye know what com- 
mandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus." From 
this it is evident that the apostle had preached at 
Thessalonica prior to the writing of this letter, and he 
now exhorts them to walk and to please God according 
to his instructions when he had been at their place, 
and calls their attention to certain commandments 
that he had delivered unto them. Then he proceeds 
to enumerate these commandments as follows: 

1. "This is the will of God, even your sanctification. " 

2. "That ye should abstain from fornication." 



HOLINESS TO BE OBTAINED IN THIS LIFE. 301 

3. ''That every one of you should know how to 
possess his vessel in sauctification and honor ; not in 
the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which 
know not God." 

4. ''That no man go beyond and defraud his brother 
in any matter." 

The reader can not fail to see in this that sanctifica- 
tion is classed among the commandments. We should 
not therefore look upon sanctification as a mere luxury 
or privilege; for a commandment implies a duty. If 
we are commanded to seek sanctification, this sublime 
experience is to be obtained now. In this we have an 
unanswerable argument. You will observe in the fore- 
going list of commandments one that requires every 
Christian to know how to possess his vessel in sancti- 
fication and honor. It would be foolishness to suppose 
that Paul would require a Christian to know how to 
possess his vessel in sanctification if his vessel could 
not receive sanctification in this life. 

We might further notice that Christ prayed for our 
sanctification. "Sanctify them through thy truth: 
thy word is truth." — Jno. 17:17. This prayer was 
offered by the Savior the night of his apprehension, 
after he had eaten the passover with his apostles and 
had instituted the ordinances of communion and feet- 
washing. Judas had gone out prior to this prayer 
(Jno. 13:30); hence "they" in the text we have 
quoted, refers to the eleven apostles. But Jesus was 
not praying for the eleven exclusively; for he shows in 



302 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

verse ^^0, that he was praying for all Christians in all 
ages. ''Xeither pray I for these alone, but for them 
also which shall believe on me through their word." 
If therefore the Son of God prayed for the sanctifica- 
tion of all his people, we must admit that this blessed 
experience may be obtained in this life, or else the Son 
of God prayed for the death of all his people. Such 
would be a ridiculous construction to place upon the 
words of our Savior. 

Christ not only prayed for our sanctification, but he 
paved the way for our sanctification by the sanctifica- 
tion of himself. ''And for their sakes I sanctify 
myself, that they also might be sanctified through the 
truth." — Yer. 19. This is a mysterious text. Some 
wonder how Christ could receive sanctification when 
he did not possess the inbred depravity which is 
purged out of our hearts in sanctification. But 
Christ's sanctification is not the same as our sanctifica- 
tion. This fact is affirmed in the epistle to the 
Hebrews. "Which hope we have as an anchor of the 
soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entered into 
that within the veil ; whither the forerunner is for us 
entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever after 
the order of Melchisedec."— Heb. 6:19. ''For Christ 
is not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
which are the figures of the true; but into heaven 
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." 
— Heb. 9:24. In these texts we have the idea set forth 
that Christ eutered into the holiest of all to prepare 



HOLINESS TO BE OBTAINED IN THIS LIFE. 303 

the way for ns that we might also enter the holiest 
place. 

The holiest of all into which Christ entered is said 
to be heaven itself. In this we see another antitype 
of the tabernacle. In a former chapter it was shown 
that the antitype of the tabernacle of Moses to the 
Christian people was the church of God, and of the 
holy and most holy place?, the two states of grace — 
justification and sanctification. But these texts show 
that the apostle applying the tabernacle of Moses as a 
type of the ministry of Christ gives it another anti- 
type, making his mission upon earth his service in the 
holy place, and his entrance into heaven his entrance 
into the most holy place. 

The veil through which Christ passed in entering 
into that which is the most holy place to him is said 
to be ^'his own blood," and "his flesh." Heb. 9:11, 
1'^; 10:19-21. Christ's sanctification is therefore to be 
explained as follows. He entered by means of his 
death from the holy place (his ministry upon eavth) to 
the most holy place (his mediatorial throne in heaven), 
to prepare the way for us to enter from that which is 
the holy place to us (justification), by his blood, 
into that which is the most holy place to us (sanctifica- 
tion). 

The conclusion to be drawn from this with resjject 
t ) the time to obtain sanctification is that the way was 
l)aved for us to enter the most holy place prepared f » r 
us the instant that Jesus entered into heaven, Iloli- 



304 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

ness has therefore been obtainable since the ascension 
of our Lord. 

As further proof that sanctification is obtainable in 
this life, we might observe that the apostolic church 
possessed it. In Heb. 10:10 Paul testifies, when speak- 
ing of the new covenant, ''By the which will we are 
sanctified." The apostle Jude addresses his epistle to 
"them that are sanctified." — Jude 1. Paul also ad- 
dresses his first epistle to the Corinthians, ''To them 
that are sanctified in Christ Jesus." — 1 Cor. 1:2. In 
1 Cor. G:ll Paul says to the Corinthians, "Ye are 
sanctified." He commands the Eomans to yield their 
members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 
Kom. 6:19. Ho tells the Thessalonians that they were 
called unto holiness. 1 Thess. 4:7. He teaches the 
Hebrews that we ai;e chastened of God, "that we might 
be partakers of his holiness." — Heb. 12:9, 10. He 
instructs the aged women, "that they be in behavior 
as becometh holiness." — Tit. 2:3. Zacharias the 
father of John the Baptist, affirms that God's covenant 
to Abraham vouchsafed to us who are in Christ, grace 
to serve God without fear in holiness and righteousness 
before him all the days of our life. Luke 1:68-75. 
All this is unanswerable proof that holiness is to be 
ob:ained in this life. 



PERFECT HOLINESS. 305 

PERFECT H0LIXE8S. 



Majs^y of those who are opposed to the doctrine of 
holiness, upon being convinced that it is obtainable in 
this life, fall to another God-dishonoring theory, that 
of a limited holiness. We hear them say. We believe 
that holiness is to be obtained in this life, but only to 
a eertaiu extent. If this be true, holiness can never 
be obtained except to a certain extent; for we have 
previously seen that no change can be made in our 
moral state after death. 

It is ridiculous to speak of being sanctified to a cer- 
tain extent. One had as well ask how round is a 
circle, and how square is a cube, as to ask how pure is 
a sanctified heart. The adjectives round and square 
belong to that class which will not admit of compari- 
son; they express the superlative within themselves. 
Hence the ridiculousness of the questions, How round? 
How square? The adjective pure^ being of the same 
class, expresses the superlative within itself. Hence 
the question, "How pure?" is not grammatical. 

God tells \is we must be pure. -In Acts 15 :9 Ave read 
that our hearts are to be purified by the Holy Ghost. 
In 1 Pet. 1 :22 Peter speaks of those who had purified 
their souls in obeying the truth. James commands, 
'^Purify your hearts, ye double-minded." — Jas. 4:8. 
Paul tells us that the "end of the commandment is 
charity out of a pure heart." — 1 Tim. 1 :5. In 1 Tim. 
3;9 he says that the deacons are to hold the mysteiy of 

20 



306 THE BETTKR TKSTAMENT. 

the fjiith in a pare cons'it^TH^p. In '2 Tim. 1:3 he testi- 
fies that, he served God wirh a pure consciecce. In 2 
Tim. 2:22 he shows that Christi ais are to call on the 
Lord '*ont of a pare heart." In 1 Pet. 1:22 Peter 
commands ChrisMans to ''love one another with a pure 
heart fervently." These scriptures prove conclusively 
that we are to be pare in our moral nature. And un- 
derstanding as Ave do that to be pure is to be free from 
all impurity, we should not allow ourselves to cavil 
about the extent to which we may be cleansed from sin. 

Bat the Bible is not a book for the learned only, and 
notwithstanding the illiteracy of the question, *'How 
pure may we become?" God in his word condescends 
out of all the rules of grammar to answer it. In 2 
Cor. 7:1 we read: "Having therefore these promis^-s, 
dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthi- 
ness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the 
fear of God." This text answers the question. How 
pure may we become? It refutes the idea of a lim- 
ited holiness, and tells us plainly that we are to be 
perfect in holiness. 

Again we read: "By one offering he hath perfected 
forever them that are sanctified." — Heb. 10:14. If 
the reader should still insist that we can obtain only a 
limited holiness, this text answers him that in sanctifi- 
cation we are "perfected forever." We are therefore 
to understand that so far as the purification of the 
heart is concerned, the sanctified are perfect; hence 
they can never become more pure. In this we have 



PERFECT HOLINESS. 307 

another unanswerable proof of the doctrine of perfect 
holiness. 

"Abstain from the very appearance of evil. And 
the very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray 
God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved 
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
— 1 Thess. 5:22, 23. In this text the apostle tells us 
that we are to be sanctified wholly — entirely. It is 
therefore another proof that we are made perfect in 
holiness before God in sanctification. 

I shall now take up an idea often advanced by 
sanctified people, that staggers the faith of unbelievers 
in holiness more perhaps than any other idea they 
advance. It is this: ''Sanctified people are as pure 
as God." We have seen that sanctification purifies 
our hearts, that it makes us perfect in holiness — sar'c- 
tifies us wholly — and that in it our hearts are perfected 
forever in purity. If therefore our hearts are cleansed 
from all impurity in sanctification, would we not in 
that state be as pure as Christ himself? Ridicjlous as 
this idea may seem to the opposer of holiness, we beg 
of him that he will not cast it aside without investiga- 
tion; for if the scripture sustains this idea, it is true 
if nobody believes it. 

Jiow I will ask the illiterate question, Kow pure is 
Christ? The word of God answers me, ''In him is no 
sin." — 1 Jno. 3:5. I will again ask. How pure is a 
sanctified man? The word of God again answers, "If 
we walk in the light, as he is in the lights we have fel- 



308 THE BETTER TESTAMP:NT. 

lowship one with another, and the blood of Jesns 
Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." — 1 Jno. 
1:7. Xow if in Christ there is no sin, and ia our 
liearts when sanctified there is no sin, would it not be 
according to truth to say we are as pure as Christ? 

We have a still stronger proof of this idea in 1 Jno. 
3:1-3 — ''Behold, what manner of love the Father hath 
bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of 
God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it 
knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, 
and it doth not yet appear what we shall be : but we 
know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; 
for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath 
thii hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." 
Here we have the plain statement that the man who 
has the hope in him of seeing Christ when he comes 
and being like him, "purifieth himself, even as he 
[Christ] is pure." This should put a stop to all quib- 
bling about the extent to which we are purified in sanc- 
tifcation. If God's word says we are pure even as he 
(Onrist) is pure, we should believe it whether we can 
comprehend it or not. 

Some oppose the idea of being made as pure as Christ, 
because they confound God's holiness with the rest of 
his attributes. They can not see how we can be equal 
with God in purity without becoming equal with him 
in -all the rest of his attributes. But they make a 
mistake by considering the attrib\ites of God insepara- 
l)le. God has seven natural (which mi.s:ht be termed 



THE FRUITS OF HOLINESS. :509 

fundamental) attributes — eternity, infinity, immuta- 
bility, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and 
holiness. Xone of these are promised unto man in 
the Bible bub h)liaess. In Heb. 12:9, 10 we read: 
''Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which 
corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we 
not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of 
spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chas- 
tened ns after their own pleasure; but he for our 
profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness." 
Here it is plainly affirmed that we are to be made par- 
takers of God's holiness. Xo text in the Bible prom- 
ises us that we shall in this life or ever in the next 
world partake of either of the other six attributes of 
God ; but this does not impeach the fact so plainly stat- 
ed in the text Just quoted, that we are to partake of 
God's holiness. If we therefore possess God's holiness, 
we are certainly as pure as God; for God's holiness in 
us is just the same as it is in heaven; yea, it is just the 
SHme in us as it is in him. And if we can never be 
omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, nor infinite like 
God, we can and must be pure like him to enter his 
blessed presence. 



THE FRUITS OF HOLINESS. 



Sanctification is a heart and life perfectly con- 
formed to the will of God. Holiness is first obtained 



olO THE BETTER TESTAME;N^T. 

ill the inward parts of man, thence it springs forth and 
decorates the outer man in all his ways with the sub- 
lime principles that pertain to the holiness of God. 
King Solomon taught that "out of the heart are the 
issues of life." — Prov. 4:23. By this he meant that 
the life we live outwardly issues from the condition of 
the heart. Jesus conveyed the same idea when he 
said, '^Cleanse first that which is within the cup and 
platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." 
— Matt. 23:26. And again, "A good man, out of the 
good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things : 
and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth 
evil things." — Matt. 12:35. It would be next to impos- 
sible to draw any other idea from these texts than that 
the inward condition of the heart is perfectly indexed 
in the outward life of man. Therefore when a man 
receives holiness in his moral nature, his outward life 
will be holy. And a perfectly holy life in thought, 
word, and deed is essential to our evidence of the pos- 
session of holiness in our moral nature. In this idea 
we comprehend what Paul meant when he said in 2 
Tim. 2:21 that the sanctified man is "a vessel unto 
honor, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and 
prepared unto every good work." 

The idea advanced by some that the sanctified man 
has not grace to obey the word of God is absurd. 
The last iota of evil is purged out of his nature and he 
is inclined only to good, and to do right is as nat- 
ural to him as it was to sin while in the sinful state. 



TlIK fmUlTS OF H0f.iXK.S8. 311 

f*aiil says in Rom. 6:22 that when we are freed from 
sin (and such freedom is obtained in sanctification), we 
have our fruit unto holiness. In this state we bear no 
fruit but holiness. 

The life of a sanctified man is beautifully pictured 
in the following texts. ''The grace of God that 
briugeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching 
us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we 
should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this 
present world."— Tit. 2:11, 12. ''That he would 
grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand 
of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holi- 
ness and righteousness before him, all the days of our 
life." — Luke 1:74,75. "Herein is our love made 
perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of 
judgment: because as he is, so are we in this 
world." — 1 Jno. 4:17. "Wherefore, beloved, seeing 
that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may 
be found of him in peace, without spot, and blame- 
less." — 2 Pet. 3:14. Many texts might be added to 
this list, but these are sufficient to enable the reader to 
see the life that perfect Christians live. 

I will now point out definitely one special fruit of 
sanctification. Turn to our Lord's prayer in the sev- 
enteenth chapter of St. John. "They aro not of the 
world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them 
through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast 
sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them 
into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, 



312 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

that they also might be sanctified through the truth." 
— Verses 16-19. From these texts it is evident that 
the burden of Christ's prayer was the sanctification 
of his apostles and followers. It is argued by some 
that Christ was praying only for the sanctification of 
the apostles. Bat this is a mistake; for he himself 
says in verse 20, "Neither pray I for these alone, but 
for them also which shall believe on me through their 
word." According to these words Jesus prayed for 
the sanctification of all who should become converted 
to Christianity down to the end of the world. We 
might ask, Why was Jesus so eager to have all his 
people sanctified? To this question Jesus answers, 
"That they all may be one." — Ver. 21. In this Jesus 
taught that sanctification would make his people 
all one. 

We hear some saying that Jesus was praying only 
for the unity of his people to a certain extent. But 
let him fix the extent of this unity. He proceeds in 
the 21st verse to define it as follows: "As thou, 
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may 
be one in us." According to these words he is set- 
ting forth a unity like that of the trinity. It is such a 
unity that he affirms to be the natural outgrowth of 
sanctification. 

Again, we hear the division-upholders affirm that he 
was speaking of an invisible unity. This is refuted 
by Christ as he proceeds to state the object of this 
unity: "That the world may believe that thou hast 



TlIK F.irits OF HOLINESS. :]i^ 

sent me. And the glory which thoa oravest me I have 
given them; that they may be one, even as w^ 
are one: 1 in them, and thou in me, that they may 
be made perfect in one; and that the world may know 
that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou 
hast loved me." — Verses 21-23. Here it is plainly 
stated by our Lord that the unity that sanctification 
will bring about among God's people will convince the 
world that Christ was sent by God. It must therefore 
be a visible unity ; for an invisible unity would be worth 
nothing to convince the world. 

Beyond doubt Jesus foresaw the division that wa-? 
coming among his followers, and foresaw also that ir 
would hinder the world from believing in him: hence 
he prayed that his people might be sanctified, "th.it 
they all might be one"; yea, perfect in one — "one, 
even as we are one." It can not be denied that these* 
verses teach that genuine sanctification destroys tlit^ 
elements of division out of the hearts of God's peoph 
and cements them into perfect oneness. Although 
this idea is antagonized by many who feign themselvc s 
teachers of holiness, I am constrained to stand on the 
word of God and affirm that there is no genuine holi- 
ness except that which brings God's people into a 
visible unity. Heb. 2:11 adds a mite of evidence iji 
favor of this idea. *'For both he that sanctifieth and 
they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause 
he is not ashamed to call them brethren." Thank 
God that he has provided in his will grace to destroy 



1 1 THE BETTER TESTAMENT^ 

the elements in the heart that would cause us to do 
things of which our Lord would be ashamed. Having 
already obtained that holiness of heart that enables us 
to live a life of which Christ says he is not ashamed, 
we have no fears about our standing before him iu the 
judgment. 

To assist our readers in the comprehension of the 
unity brought about by the experience of sanctification 
we would state that the apostle Paul located the 
elements of division in carnality in the heart. In 

1 Cor. 3:1-3 he says: ''And I, brethren, could not 
speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, 
even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with 
milk, and not with meat ; for hitherto ye were not able 
to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet 
carnal ; for whereas there is among you envying, and 
strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as 
men?" It appears from the language of this text that 
Paul disputes the sanctification of some at Corihth who 
supposed themselves to have already obtained that bles - 
ed experience. He says they were not spiritual. Wh t 
could he have meant by this but to deny their sanctiti- 
cation? Yet he admits them to be babes in Christ; 
hence they had obtained the first work of grace — spir- 
itual birth. He says they were yet carnal, that is, 
they were possessed of the carnal nature, that inbred 
depravity that is destroyed out of the heart in sanctifi- 
cation. But on what grounds did he hold them to be 
yet possessed with carnality? ''For whereas there is 



SANC/riFJCATIOK AN INSTANTANEOtJS CHAXGE. 3l5 

amou^ you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye 
not carnal, and walk as men?" If Paul knew the 
Corinthians were carnal because there was envying 
and strife and division among them, may we not know 
by the envy, strife, and division among the people to- 
day that the nominal Christian world is unsanctified? 
Surely if we could get all the Christians of to-day 
sanctified, all envy, and strife, and division among them 
would cease. 



SAKCTIFICATIOX AN IXSTAIs^TANEOUS 
CHANGE OF NATURE. 



Opposers of holiness manifest a spirit that is very 
similar to the spirit manifested by the opposers of any 
other Bible doctrine. They evade one truth after 
another, and must be driven from behind their objec- 
tions one at a time by the inspired word. They are 
frequently heard to say (after being driven to acknowl- 
edge that the doctrine of holiness is in the Bible) that 
sanctirication is a mere growth or development. This 
•idea I shall rebut with the Bible proof that sanctifica- 
tion is a real change in our nature. If I can substan- 
tiate this by the scriptures, the idea that sanctification 
is a growth or development falls to the ground ; be 
cause neither the word groioth nor the word development 
contains any idea of a change in the nature of 
anything. 



316 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

That sanctification is a real cliangp in our nature 
would scarcely be denied by the reader after he has 
perused the foregoing chapters. Nevertheless, lest he 
should not yet have fully grasped the idea, I shall 
apply my pen for a little time to this thought. 

In 1 Thess. 5:22-24 we read: ''And the very God of 
peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole 
spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he 
that calleth you, who also will do it." In this text 
sanctification is set forth as an experience unto which 
we are called by God. Paul consoles the Thessalonians 
with the words, ''Faithful is he that calleth you, who 
also will do it," and prays that they might be pre- 
served in this higher life unto the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. He also shows sanctification to be an 
experience that affects the entire man — spirit, soul, 
and body. Surely these thoughts prove sanctification 
to be an experience to be sought that changes our very 
nature. 

In Heb. 9:13, 14 we read: "For if the blood of bulls 
and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the 
unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how 
much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the 
eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge 
your conscience from dead works to serve the living 
God?" Here the two sanctifications, that of the Old Tes- 
tament and that under the Xew Testament, are contrast- 
ed. The New Testament sanctification is shown to be an 



8ANCTIFICATI0K AK INSTANTANEOUS CHANGE. 317 

actual purging of our conscience. A purging implies 
a cleansing away of something. If therefore sanctifica- 
tion is a cleansing away of something from our con- 
science, it is evidently a real change in our nature. 

In 1 Jno. 1:7 sanctification is described as follows: 
*'But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we 
have fellowship one with another, and the blood oi' 
Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." We 
need not follow this idea any further. If the blood of 
Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin in sanctifica- 
tion, none can fail to see that sanctification is a purify- 
ing of our very nature, and I consider this idea estab- 
lished. 

It was stated above that neither growth nor develop- 
ment implied any change in our nature, and that 
sanctification was therefore neither a growth nor a 
development. Space will now be given to show just 
what these two terms signify. 

Orowth is simply an enlargement of size. This is 
the idea expressed by that word in any sense we may 
use it; but it never changes the nature of anything. 
We may plant a seed in the ground and if it has a 
proper soil, sunlight, and moisture, it will germinate 
and grow. After the growth is started, it can be 
accelerated by the proper attention. But all the care 
it may receive can never grow it into a vegetable of 
another species, because, as stated above, growth can 
not change nature. 

Development is an improvement of the quality of a 



31S THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

thing by the bringing out of the better qualities that 
are contained in the nature of that thing. For in- 
stance, a species of fruit might by the proper domesti- 
cation, be greatly improved in quality. This is owing 
to the fact that the better qualities are contained in 
the very nature of the fruit, and not that its nature is 
changed by development. If development could eifo; t 
a change in nature, then one species of fruit could be 
developed into another species. But as development 
can not change nature, this can never be brought 
about. 

The words growth and development may be properly 
applied to the Christian life in some respects, but not 
to that change known in the word of God as sanctilica- 
tion. A man in jastiiication receives a purging out of 
his nature of certain things, and there is imparted to 
his nature certain qualities that can be developed in 
his Christian life. Also in sanctification certain 
elements are cleansed out of our nature that are for- 
eign to the human nature, and the primeval qualities 
of our nature are restored to us. These may grow and 
be developed in our life after Ave are sanctitied. lUit 
the sanctification of our nature or our spiritual birth, 
being real changes wrought in us, can not be called a 
growth or a development. Christians are commande'l 
to "grow in grace." 2 Pet. 3:18. They are not 
commanded to ''grow into grace," which expression 
would signify that we are placed into grace by growth, 
but they are commanded to grow "in grace," which 



o 



SANCTiFlCATlON AK INSTANTANEOUS CHANGE. ;3I1I 

expression implies merely an enlargement in the graces 
of God after we have been planted into that grace. I 
believe I have now established the idea that saotifica- 
tion is a change in our nature and that therefore it is 
no growth or development, and I shall now proceed to 
show that it is an instantaneous change. 

It will first be shown that sanctification is wrought 
in the heart by the Holy Ghost. Peter tells us that 
sanctification is of the Spirit. 1 Pet. 1 :2. Paul also tells 
us that sanctification is of the Spirit. 2 Thess. 2:13. 
This expression implies that sanctification is wrought 
by the Holy Spirit. Again, Paul says we are "sanc- 
tified by the Holy Ghost."— Rom. 15:16. This latter 
declaration establishes my idea clearly. 

But it might be asked: Does the Holy Ghost sanc- 
tify at the instant it comes into the heart, or at a later 
date? We answer: At the instant it comes into the 
heart. We are told in 1 Cor. 3:17 that the ''templo 
of God is holy." Verse 16 of the same chapter shows; 
that the expression ' 'temple of Goa" in this text signi- 
fies the dwelling-house of the Spirit of God. It is; 
therefore affirmed here that the dwelling-house of the 
Spirit of God is holy. This is an unanswerable proof 
that every man in whom the Spirit of God dwells is 
holy. This idea fully analyzed proves that sanctifica- 
tion is received the instant the Spirit of God comes into 
our heart. For if we are not sanctified at the instant we 
receive the Holy Ghost, during the period of time in- 
tervening between the time we received the Holy Spirit 



320 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

and the time Ave received sanctification, the dwellings 
house of the Spirit of God would not be holy. There- 
fore as we become the temple of God the moment the 
Spirit of God comes into our heart, and the temple of 
God is holy, our very being is holy from the time the 
Spirit of God is received. 

It now remains for us to prove that the Holy Ghost 
is received instantaneously to prove that sanctification 
is an instantaneous change of our nature. The very 
fact that the reception of the Holy Ghost is styled a 
baptism in the Bible proves that it is an instantaneous 
operation. In Acts 2:1-4 we are told that on the day 
of Pentecost the people were suddenly filled with the 
Holy Ghost. In Acts 10:44, 45 we read that the Holy 
Ghost "fell on" Cornelius and his household while 
Peter was preaching to them, and that the Holy Spirit 
was "poured out" upon them. In other places in 
Acts we read that the Holy Spirit was received by the 
imposition of hands. Acts 8:17; 19:6. All this but 
proves that the reception of the Holy Ghost is instan- 
taneous, and as I have before proved that sanctification 
is coincident with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, I 
consider the premises of this chapter established. 



SANCTIFICATION A SECOND WOEK OP 
GKACE. 



The doctrine of the second work of grace, notwith- 
standing the many objections raised against it by the 



SANCTIFICATION A SECOND WORK OF GRACE. 321 

multitude of its antagonists, contains beyond doubt 
more definite proofs of its orthodoxy than any other 
doctrine set forth in the Bible. As many of these 
proofs are to be found under other headings, it is not 
my intention to bring forth in this chapter more than 
is necessary to establish the proposition under which I 
am now writing. 

I call attention first to the first epistle of Paul to the 
Thessalonians. In the first verse of the first chapter 
it will be seen that this epistle is addressed ''unto the 
church of the Thessalonians, which is in God the 
Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ." The little 
phrases ''in God the Father" and "in Christ," are 
repeatedly used in the New Testament to signify the 
state of justification, or regeneration. To show the 
true signification of these phrases, we might quote a 
few texts in which they are found. "He that saith he 
abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as 
he walked." — 1 Jno. 2:6. "Whosoever abideth in him 
sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, 
neither known him. " — 1 Jno. 3:6. These texts are 
sufficient to show that to be in that state in which we 
are said to be "in Christ," is to be transformed in- 
wardly and delivered from a state of wickedness to a 
state in which we can live a life that is well-pleasing in 
the sight of God. This could be true of none other 
than those who are actually born of God. Therefore I 
conclude that the Thessalonians whom Paul addressed 
as "in God" and "in Christ" were regenerated men 
and women. 



322 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

As we pass through the epistle we find Paul urging 
them to press forward into the experience of sanctifica- 
tion. In the tenth verse of the third chapter he men- 
tions his great anxiety to see them face to face that he 
might perfect that which was lacking in their faith. 
This proves that the apostle understood that there was 
some further grace that needed to have been sought by 
them. In the fourth chapter and third verse he shows 
what that needed grace was, with the words *'This is 
the will of God, even your sanctification." Again, in 
verse 7, ''Ood hath not called you unto uncleanness, 
but unto holiness [sanctification]." Again, in chap- 
ter 5, verses 22-24, he says, '* Abstain from all appear- 
ance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you 
wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and 
body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, 
who also will do it." These texts show very clearly 
that the grace needed by the Thessalonians was sanc- 
tification. The tenor of these texts shows that it was 
not some ceremonial work to be performed by our- 
selves, but a change to be wrought in us by the power 
of God. The words ''Faithful is he that calleth you, 
who also will do it" confirm this idea. So the only 
conclusion to be drawn concerning the experience of 
the Thessalonian church, from this epistle, is thj.t 
they had received the first work of grace, spiritual 
birth, but had not yet received the secoud work of 
grace, sanctification. This is an unanswerable proof 
that sanctification is a second work of grace. 



SA.NCTIFICATION A SECOND WORK OF GRACE. 323 

I will now introduce Eph. 5:25, 26. As the 
standard version is obscure on this text, I quote from 
other translations. "The husbands love your own 
wives, as also the Christ did love the assembly, and did 
give himself for it, that he might sanctify it, having 
cleansed it with the bathing of the water in the say- 
ing." — Young'' s Translation. 

"Husbands, love your wives, even as the Anointed 
One loved the congregation, and delivered himself up 
on her behalf; so that, having purified her in the bath 
of water, he might sanctify her by the word." — 
Emphatic Diaglott. 

These translations beautifully set forth the thought 
contained in the original Greek, and their language 
brings out another proof that sanctification is a second 
work of grace. They say that we are first purified in 
the bath of water, afterwards sanctified by the word. 
The "bath of water" signifies regeneration. It is so 
called to call our attention to the most prominent type 
of regeneration in the Old Testament, the washing of 
the priests in the laver before entering into the holy 
place to accomplish the services of God. 

This purifying "in the bath of water" is dominated 
"washing of regeneration" in Tit. 3:5, which I quote, 
as it also conveys the idea of twofold salvation. It 
reads: "Not by works of righteousness which we have 
done, but according tu his mercy he saved us, by the 
washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost," The "renewing of the Holy Ghost" men^ 



324 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

tioned here is identical with the sanctification by the 
word, mentioned in the previous text; because we 
liu'.e seen in the previous chapter that sanctification 
tuv] the baptism of the Holy Ghost are identical. 
Without any further comment the reader will be en- 
abled to see in this text a proof that sanctification is 
obtained subsequent to regeneration. 

The second work of grace is also set forth in the 
epistles to the Corinthians. In 1 Cor. 3:1-3 Paul 
shows that the Corinthians were babes in Christ, yet 
stood in neea of another work of grace. This second 
grace is sanctification. We are not to understand from 
this text tha,t there were no sanctified people at Cor- 
iuth; for a few of them were sanctified. 1 Cor. 1:2, 
But like many local churches of to-day, there were 
many in th's church who had not yet obtained the 
second work of grace. Therefore Paul wrote as 
he did. 

In Heb. 12:23 Paul says the church has come ''to 
the spirits of just men made perfect." This is an- 
other proof of the second work of grace. If we first 
become just men and afterwards are made perfect, 
then we must receive two works of grace. And since 
we are made perfect in sanctification (Heb. 10:14), the 
two works of grace are properly styled justification and 
sanctification. 

I now introduce one more proof in conclusion. 
*' Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace 
With (xod through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom 



GKAFTIXG, PKUJSjIXG, AXD PURGINC4. 325 

also we have access by faith into this grace wherein 
we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." — 
Rom. 5:1, 2. Here Paul shows that the two works of 
grace are to be obtained consecutively. First, we are 
justified by faith through our Lord Jesus Christ; then 
''also" {in addition to)^ we have access by faith into 
this grace wherein we stand, sanotification. 

I deem it unnecessary to follow these proofs any f i r- 
ther in this chapter, although I might protract it into 
a lengthy treatise. 



GRAFTING, PRUNIJfG, AlfD PURGING. 



In the fifteenth chapter of John JesuS represents 
his church by the figure of a vine and its branches. 
He says, ''I am the true vine, and my Father is the 
husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not 
fruit he taketh away ; and every branch that beareth 
fruit, he purgeth it that it may bring forth more 
fruit." — Verses 1, 2. Because of Jesus' plain state- 
ment, it must be conceded that himself is the vine of 
this parable. But who are the branches? Some who 
are eager to justify the various human organizations 
say the denominations are the branches. But in this 
they mistake ; because Jesus addressing his apostles, 
said, ''I am the vine, ye are the branches." — 
Ver. 5. Again, he says, ''If a man abide not in me, he 
is cast forth as a branch, and is withered." — Ver. 6. 



3^6 THE BETTEk TESTAMENT. 

A man (an individaal) is a branch, and not a society. 

All men are not branches of Christ, but only those 
who have been grafted into Christ. Jesus does not 
speak of grafting in this parable, because this process 
is not used in connection with the grape-vine ; but as 
men ^re not naturally the branches of Christ, but are 
made branches by grace, and since Paul in his parable 
of the tame and wild olive-trees in Eom. 11 uses >his 
figure, we take the liberty to use it here. The grafting 
that makes us members of Christ, Paul tells us is con- 
trary to nature. Eom. 11:24. If it were according 
to nature, the scion would bring forth the same kiud 
of fruit that it bore while in its native tree; but being 
contrary to nat^are, the scion in the grafting receives a 
sufficient change in its nature to cause it to bear the 
fruit of the Christ vine into which it has been grafted, 
instead of the sinful fruit of the Adamic vine out of 
which it was taken. 

The fruit borne by those who have become branches 
of Christ is the fruit of the Spirit, which is defined by 
Paul as follows: ''The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, 
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 
meekness, temperance: against such there is no 
law."— Gal. 5:22, 23. ''There ... is no condemna- 
tion to them which are in Christ." — Rom. 8:1. 
"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." — 1 Jno. 
3:6. The change wrought in our hearts on being 
grafted into Christ, the true vine, is in the scriptures 
variously denominated justification, regeneration, the 



GRAFTING, PRUNING, AND PURGING. 327 

birth of God, or of the Spirit, etc. Of the justified it 
is said, They have peace with God. Rom. 5:1. They 
need no repentance. Luke 15:7. Of those who are 
born of God it is said, ''Whosoever is born of God 
d(>th not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: 
and he can not sin, because he is born of God." — 1 
Jiio. 3:9. ''We know that whosoever is born of God 
sinueth not; ,but he that is begotten of God 
keepeth himself, and that wicked ene toucheth him 
not."— IJno. 5:18. 

Having now described the change that takes place 
within us in the grafting that makes us members of 
the true vine, let us consider what is to follow. 
"Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh 
away; and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth 
it, that it may bring forth more fruit." According to 
this it is expected that every branch of the true vine 
shall continue ever to bear fruit unto the glory of God, 
and those who do not are to be pruned out of the vine, 
while the fruit-bearing branches are to receive a purg- 
ing that will enable them to bring forth more fruit. 
But what is it that remains in our heart after regenera- 
tion to be purged away? Answer — The sinful nature 
that is born in us (Ps. 51:5), which we inherit from 
the fall of Adam. Rom. 5:12-19. Our infancy is 
stain 'd by this sinful nature (Rom. 7:7-13), and it 
remains in our hearts after regeneration; hence we are 
"yet carnal." 1 Cor. 3:1-3. Its manifestations in 
us are anger (Eph. 4:26), envy, strife, and division 



328 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

(1 Cor. 3:3), assumption to greatness (Luke 22:24, 
25), etc. The purging destroys all the manifestations 
of carnality in us by cleansing all inherent sin out of 
our natures. Of this purging John writes, ''If we 
walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellow- 
ship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ 
his Son cleanseth us from all sin." — 1 Jno. 1:7. 

We frequently hear the antagonists of the second 
work of grace say that ''purge" is not a correct trans- 
lation from the original in Jno. 15:2. But their asser- 
tion is groundless. Kathairo is the Greek word. It 
is found but twice in the New Testament. In Heb. 
10:2 it is translated j?wr^e, in the expression "Because 
that the worshipers once purged should have had no 
more conscience of sins." In this text kaihairo must 
be translated purge or some of its equivalents. Kath- 
arizo^ a word kindred to kathairo^ is found many times 
in the New Testament, and can not in a single in- 
stance be translated prune. It is always rendered 
purge, purify, cleanse, and to make clean. As the 
LXX. was the Bible of the apostolic church, the lan- 
guage of the New Testament is borrowed largely from 
it. If, therefore, kathairo is used in Jno. 15:2 to 
signify prune, we may expect to find this word applied 
in that sense in the LXX. It is never used in that 
sense. Temno is the word always used for prune in 
the LXX. 

The strongest objection to the translation of ka- 
thairo by the word prune is that it would not make 



THE TITHING SYSTEM ABOLISHED. 329 

sense. To prune a branch is to cut it off, and it is 
ridiculous to think that to cut off a fruit-bearing 
branch will cause it to bring forth more fruit. It is 
the branches which do not bring forth fruit, that have 
the pruning-knife applied to them, as we have seen 
before; but the fruit-bearing branches receive a purg- 
ing that enables them to bring forth more fruit. This 
purging is none other than the sanctification received 
subsequent to regeneration in the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. Rom. 15:16; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:2. 



THE TITHING SYSTEM ABOLISHED. 



The true origin of the tithing sy^em is unknoim. 
Many heathen nations as well as the Jews practiced 
it at a very early date. The earliest account of it in 
the Bible is found in Gen. 14:20, where it is stated 
that Abraham when he returned from the slaughter of 
the kings gave the tenth of all the spoils he had taken 
unto Melchizedek king of Salem (Jerusalem). The 
next mention of the tithing system is in Gen. 28:22, 
where Jacob vowed to give to the Lord the tenth of 
all the Lord should give him. 

From these proofs of the existence of the tithing 
system before the giving of the law of Moses some 
have argued that it could not have been set aside with 
the abolition of the law. But this argument is not 
altogether sound; because Moses incorporated a num- 



330 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

ber of customs in his law that existed before his time, 
which the New Testament affirms to be abolished. 
Circumcision, for instance, originated with Abraham 
four hundred and thirty years before the law was 
given; yet the New Testament sets it aside with the 
rest of Moses' law. Gal. 0:6, The offering of the 
blood of animals for sin-sacrifices originated in the 
family of Adam (Gen. 4:4), and was practiced by all 
the patriarchs of the pre-Mosaic age, yet it was incor- 
porated by Moses into the law, and abolished by Christ 
with the entire Mosaic system. So we can not consis- 
tently hold that any part of the law continues in force 
since the abolition of the old system, upon the ground 
that it existed before the law. 

The validity of the tithing system depends not upon 
its existence before the law, nor its incorporation into 
the law, but upon its enforcement in the Xew Testa- 
ment exclusively. If the New Testament commands 
us to pay tithes, the tithing system is in vogue; other- 
wise it is not obligatory upon Christians. 

It is affirmed by some that Jesus enjoined the tithing 
system upon the Christians. If he did, it was with 
the following words: "Woe unto you, scribes and 
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and 
anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier 
matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these 
ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other 
undone." — Matt. 23:23. Jesus does not here enjoin 
the tithing system upon Christians, any more than 



Tin-: tllHKVCr SYSTKM ABOLISIIKI). Hoi 

he enjoins the entire law of Moses upon them in verses 
1-3 of the same chapter, which read: "Then spake 
Jesus to the multitude and to his disciples, saying, 
The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all 
therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe 
and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, 
and do not." This text as truly enjoins all the 
Mosaic system upon the disciples of Christ as verse 2o 
enjoins the tithing system upon the scribes and Phar- 
isees. Why should we therefore enjoin the tithing 
system upon Christians upon the ground that Jesus 
taught it, and not the entire law of Moses? I must 
say that I am unable to see the fairness of such an 
argument. If Jesus enjoined any part of the Mosaic 
law upon us, he enjoined it all. 

A proper interpretation of Christ's teaching is as 
follows: The law continued in force until the Savior's 
death, at which event the Xew Testament locates its 
abolition. Eph. 2:13-16; Col. 2:14. It was therefore 
proper that Jesus should enjoin the law upon his fol- 
lowers during his lifetime; for it could not be set aside 
until legally abolished: but his teaching on this subject 
does not carry the law as a whole or a part over into 
the gospel age, which properly begins, with his death. 
Heb. 9:16, 17. 

A proper rule for determining the constituents of 
the New Testament is as follows: AA^hatever new idea 
Jesus introduced during his ministry, that he did not 
himself repeal (as in the case of certain things enjoined 



332 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

upon the twelve in the first commission, given in Luke 
10:4; 22:35, 36), and whatever idea contained in the 
Old Testament that is enjoined by the Holy Ghost in 
the epistles after the Lord's death is a component 
part of the Xew Testament. The tithing system is 
nowhere carried this side of the death of Christ, and 
is, therefore, to be classed with abolished rites. 

Paul was doiibtless speaking of the abolition of the 
tithing system when he said, ''For, brethren, ye have 
been called unto liberty ; only use not liberty for an 
occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this : 
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." — Gal. 5:13, 
14. The law had specified the per cent, that every 
man should give; but the law has been abrogated, 
leaving every man to give "as he purposeth in his 
heart." Therefore said the apostle, "Ye have been 
called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion 
to the flesh"; that is, do not use the fact that we are 
not required to give a certain percentage for a cloak of 
covetousness and refrain from giving, "but by love 
serve one another," that is, give from the principle 
of love to God and man. 



THE BETTER FmANCIAL SYSTEM. 



Those who believe in paying tithes are ready to cry 
that if the tithing system be abolished there remains 



to 



THE BETTER FINANCIAL SYSTEM. 33o 

no scriptural financial system. But in this they mis- 
take, like law-teachers generally concerning most mat- 
ters. The Savior has given us a financial system in the 
gospel that is better by far than the system set forth in 
Moses' law. To simplify this subject I shall briefly 
review the Old Testament financial system, then set 
forth the New Testament financial system, and by 
comparison the reader can not fail to see the correct- 
ness of my idea. 

The Mosaic financial system was as follows: The 
eleven tribes were required to give unto the Levites 
one-tenth of all their income. See Num. 18:21-24. 
The Levites possessed no inheritance except a city 
here and there to serve as a mere homestead, and their 
occupation was to take care of the clerical work. 
After one-tenth was given to the Levites, the eleven 
tribes were required to give another tenth for the pur- 
pose of conducting a great social gathering, in the 
vicinity of the house of the Lord or some other city, 
once every three years. This is very clearly set forth 
in the LXX., which I quote. "And when thou shalt 
have completed all the tithings of thy fruits in the 
third year, thon shalt give a second tenth to the 
Levite, and stranger, and fatherless, and widow; and 
they shall eat it in thy cities, and be merry." — Deut. 
26:12. The priests did not obtain a whole tenth as 
some suppose, but one-tenth of the tenth, as is seen 
by the following quotation. "Thus speak unto the 
Levites, and say unto them. When ye take of the chil- 



334 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

dren of Israel the tithes which I have given you from 
them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an 
heave-offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of 
tne tithe. And this your heave-offering shall be reck- 
oned unto you, as though it were the corn of the 
thrashing-floor, and as the fullness of the wine-press. 
Thus ye also shall offer an heave-offering unto the 
Lord of all your tithes, which ye receive of the chil- 
dren of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the Lord's 
heave-offering to Aaron the priest." — Xum. 18:26-28. 
The Aaronites were the priests. They were a family 
of the tribe of Levi. They obtained one-tenth of the 
tenth gathered by the Levites for their sustenance, 
that is, the one-hnndredth part of the income of the 
eleven tribes. Besides this they were allowed to eat 
the offerings. Xum. 18:8-10. 

Another important feature of the Old Testament 
system was the year of release, which was every seventh 
year. "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he 
shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free 
for nothing." — Ex. 21 :x*. "Every seven years thou 
shalt make a release. And this is the ordinance of the 
release: thou shalt remit every private debt which thy 
neighbor owes thee, and thou shalt not ask payment of 
it from thy brother; for it has been called a release of 
the Lord thy God. Of a stranger thou shalt ask again 
whatsoever he has of thine, but to thy brother thou 
shalt remit his debt to thee. For thus there shall not 
be a poor person in the midst of thee; for the Lord thy 



THE BETTER FINANCIAL SYSTEM. 335 

God will surely bless thee in the land which the Lord 
tliy God gives thee by inheritance, that thou shouldest 
inherit it." — Deut. 15:1-4 from LXX. According to 
the former of these texts the Hebrews were allowed to 
liold one of their brethren as a servant until the year 
of release. According to the latter every debt against 
a brother was outlawed every seventh year, but it 
never outlawed if held against one of another nation. 
Another important feature of the old financial sys- 
tem was the year of jubilee, which came once in fifty 
years. It is described in the law as follows: "And 
thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, 
seven times seven years; and the space of the seven 
sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine 
years. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the 
jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh 
month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the 
trtimpet sound throughout all your land. And ye shall 
hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty through- 
out all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it 
shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every 
man unto his possession, and ye shall return every 
man unto his family. A jubilee shall that fiftieth year 
be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which 
groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of 
thy vine undressed. For it is the jubilee ; it shall be 
holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out 
of the field. In the year of this jubilee ye shall return 
every man unto his possession. And if thou sell ought 



336 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

unto thy neighbor, or buyest ought of thy neighbor's 
hand, ye shall not oppress one another: according to 
the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of 
thy neighbor, and according unto the number of years 
of the fruits he shall sell unto thee : according to the 
multitude of years thou shalt increase the price 
thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou 
shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the 
number of years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee. 
Ye shall not therefore oppress one another: but thou 
shalt fear thy God; for I am the Lord your God." — 
Lev. 25:8-17. The main feature of the year of jubilee 
was the return of all real estate to its former owner. 

I have now fully set forth the Mosaic financial sys- 
tem, except some free-will offerings which were re- 
quired upon some occasions. It was in many respects 
a good financial system, but it is inferior to the perfect 
system of our Savior, as I shall proceed to show. 
Moses' system would do much toward preventing land 
syndicates, and would prevent single individuals from 
gathering great tracts of land to leave to their chil- 
dren. But the jubilee came but once in fifty years, 
therefore in that time a great many poor could have 
been robbed of their land. The year of release also 
did much towards preventing the oppression of the 
poor; because all debts against brothers were canceled 
in that year. Xevertheless under this old system 
schemers could have acquired an immense wealth. By 
avoiding as much as convenient the purchase of lands 



THE BETTER FINANCIAE SYSTEM. 337 

and the lending of their money they could have escaped 
all losses from either the release or the jubilee. 

Jesus' system is far superior to the Mosaic system as 
regards these matters; for he positively forbids the 
hiying up of treasures. ''Lay not up for yourselves 
treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth cor- 
rupt, and where thieves break through and steal." — 
Matt. 6:19. "And he spake a parable unto them, 
saying. The ground of a certain rich man brought 
forth plentifully: and he thought within himself, say- 
ing. What shall I do, because I have no room where to 
bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will 
pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will 
I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say 
to my soul. Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for 
many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. 
But God said unto him. Thou fool, this night thy soul 
shall be required of thee : then whose shall those things 
be which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up 
treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." — 
Luke 12:16-21. The first of these texts is a positive 
commandment against laying up treasures upon earth. 
Xo man therefore can live to Christ's financial system 
who does this. The second of these texts shows the 
utter foolishness of laying up earthly treasures. It is 
its own best interpreter, and we need add no com- 
ments. These texts set forth the sentiment of the 
entire Xew Testament. Xo jubilee is taught, nor any 
year of release; because none is needed. Jesus cuts 

^ ^ 22 



*3o8 THK 13ETTKU TESTA M EXT. 

off the necessity for cither by striking: at the very head 
of the evil, and forbidding the hiyi ng up of treasures. 
There are few in this wicked world wh) live according 
to the teachings of our Savior; therefore I shall not 
endeavor to point out the way professors are living, 
but the way Jesus commands them to live. 

When Jesus found those who had acquired great 
wealth during their sinful career, he d-manded of 
them to sell it, and to make distribution to the poor, 
as is seen in the case of the rich young man mentioned 
in Matt. 19. Also in Luke 12:33 he commands, "Sell 
that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags 
which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that 
faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth 
corrupteth." These teachings of Clirist are very easily 
comprehended; for the command is to sell our supera- 
bun<lance of treasure when we come into the kingdom, 
and it forbids us to lay up treasure after we enter the 
service of Christ. 

Bui some would ask. May we not lay up a great for- 
tune for our children when we are gone? I answer, 
Xo: his teaching nowhere allows it. When he com- 
manded us not to lay up treasure he inserted no excep- 
tional clause; so we are to understand it in its absolute 
sense. It is all right to do business and make money 
under the gospel; in fact, it is wrong not to exercise 
ourselves in that direction; for we are commanded to 
be "not slothful in business."— Rom. 12:11. The 
apostle Paul sums up the legitimate objects of making 



THE JJETTKR FJNAN(UAL SYSTEM. o.i'J 

money under the gospel under two heads, as follows. 

First, to provide for our families. ''But if any 
provide not for his own, and especially for those of his 
own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than 
an infidel." — 1 Tim. 5:8. "For the children ought 
not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the 
children." — 2 Cor. 12:14. The latter text some hold 
to teach the hoarding up of wealth for our children 
after we are dead, but this is refuted by the context. 
Paul makes use of these words when speaking of his 
refusal of means from the hands of the Corinthians. 
This shows that the language refers only to the pro- 
viding of necessary food and raiment for the children. 
If he had intended to teach the duty of laying up 
treasures for our descendants after our death, he 
would have enjoined a duty that many Christians could 
not perform. 

Second, to have something to give to the needy. 
"Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him 
labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, 
that he may have to give to him that needeth." — Eph. 
4:28. I am certain that no other legitimate object of 
making money can be sustained in the New Testament. 

John Wesley has beautifully set forth the financial 
system of the New Testament in his sermon on money, 
in which he maintained that we are required, first, to 
make all the money we can; second, to save all the 
money we can; third, to give all the money we can. 

The Xew Testament financial system so far as per- 



:340 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

tains to the maintenance of ministers of the gospel is 
as follows. "The Lord hath ordained that they which 
preach the gospel should live of the gospel." — 1 Cor. 
9:14:. But they are not allowed to make charges for 
their preaching. They are commanded inasmuch as 
they have freely received the gospel to give it freely. 
Matt. 10:8. It must be delivered without charge. 1 
Cor. 9:18. According to this, stipulated salaries are 
unscriptural. God's ministers are to trust the Lord 
fully for their living, and the Lord in answer to tlu'ir 
prayers will move the people to bestow upon them 
free-will offerings sufficient for their support. God 
commands the laity to communicate to the ministry of 
all good things for their support. Gal. 6:6. But they 
are not to be driven to this giving by taxation, but 
should be taught by the ministers to give cheerfully 
and from the good purpose of their hearts. 2 Cor. 
9:7. This is in truth abetter financial system than 
that of the Old Testament. The Levitical priesthood 
under their system obtained their living by taxation; 
hence needed not to trust the Lord for it: under the 
Xew Testament system God's ministers do not receive 
their living by taxation, bat by faith in God. This 
gives them a chance to develop their faith, and thus 
make themselves more efficient as ministers of the 
gospel. The New Testament system also tends to keep 
the n inistry pure; for except men are clear before 
God, they can not trust God for their living. 

The proper way to gather money in the churcli 



CAt^ltAL t>UKISHMENT. :]41 

under the New Testament system is set forth in 1 Cor. 
16 ;1, 2 — ''Xow concerning the collection for the saints, 
as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even 
so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every oi e 
of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, 
that there be no gatherings when I come." According 
to this text each local assembly should have a treasury 
established. A box or something of the kind should 
be provided, into which each Christian could place his 
liberalities every Lord's day. This may be stationed 
at the door or in any convenient place, and thus avoid 
the passing of baskets, etc., to the disgust of unbe- 
lievers. 



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 



The writer is aware that he is here encountering an 
evil upon which few pens will venture an attack. 
Although there is a strong sentiment in many places 
against this shocking evil, the reverence for the 
politcal powers has so paralized the tongues and pens 
of the people that they pass over it in almost utter 
silence and treat it almost with reverence. I am con- 
strained to reverence the political powers and to uphold 
them because they are instituted by God, but I can 
not be induced to believe that all their laws are made 
by divine inspiration, and therefore must believe that 
even the political powers may, sometimes, be mis- 



342 The better testamp:^!'. 

taken. The laws are made by fallible men, and we 
should not feel ourselves under obligation to uphold a 
law that we can not conscientiously believe to be cor- 
rect. We should be subject to the laws although they 
may be erroneous and unjust, when they do not inter- 
fere with our duty to God; but there is no just reason 
why we should not feel ourselves at liberty to cry out 
boldly against a law enacted by men that is contrary to 
the sentiments of that perfect law revealed unto us 
by our Savior. 

The law of Moses upheld capital punishment, but 
this is not suflficient proof that it should be practiced 
in this glorious gospel age. Moses' law allowed a 
great many other evils that would shock the true 
worshipers under the New Testament. He com- 
manded the Israelites to save up a tenth of all their 
income to be used every third year in a great worldl} 
carousal in the various cities of their land. Hear what 
liberty he gives them. ''And thou shalt bestow that 
money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, 
or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for 
whatsoever thy soul desiieth: and thou shalt eat there 
before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, 
and thine household." — Deut. 14:26. Such things as 
Moses here allowed would be horrifying unto those 
whose hearts are cleansed by the precious blood of the 
Lamb. Moses also allowed the evil practice of danc- 
ing. Solomon who lived under Moses' law said, ''There 
is a time to dance." — Eccl. 3:14. This evil practice 



CAPITAL PI ^^ISHMEXt. 343 

was indulged in freely by the Jewish race. Even king 
David sometimes danced; and what was still worse, he 
carried this practice into religious worship. 2 Sam. 
0:14. Such service would probably answer in the old 
dispensation, but it is far behind the s^^irit of the 
new. Moses also allowed the people to hate their 
enemies, to divorce their companions, and a great 
many other evils that are horrifying to the Christian. 
If we are going to cling unto Moses' capital punish- 
ment, why not also cling unto his dancing, frolicing, 
drinking, and worldly carousing? why not also hate 
our enemies, divorce our wives, and practice Moses' 
law in full? If we believe that there is still ''a time to 
kill," why not believe that there is also ^ 'a time to 
dance," '^a time to hate," a time to drink, and a time 
for divorcement, etc.? And if we believe that there 
is no longer a time to drink, nor "a time to hate," nor 
a time for divorcement, why not add, also, nor "a> time 
to kill"? The law of Moses is abolished as a whole, 
and not a single injunction contained in it is in force 
merely because it was commanded by Moses. If Jesus 
Christ has carried any principle that was contained in 
Moses' law over into the gosj)el, it is in force because 
he commanded it. He did this with every principle of 
righteousness contained in Moses' law; but capital 
punishment is not based upon any principle of right- 
eousness, nor was it re-enacted by the great Lawgiver 
(who abolished the law of Moses) as a part of his all- 
glorious and perfect law. 



344 THE bp:tter testament* 

Neither Jesus nor any of liis apostles ever justified 
capital punishment in any of the writings that have 
come down to us, but Jesus contrariwise renounced it 
in the same famous sermon in which he abolished 
Moses' laws of hating enemies, divorcement, etc. 
Observe what he says: ''Ye have heard that it hath 
been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 
bat T say unto you. That ye resist not evil," etc. — 
Matt. 5:38, 39. The reader would hardly conceive 
that Jesus is here doing away with the very law of 
Moses that enjoins capital punishment, except he turn 
back and read the statute referred to by Jesus, in 
Moses' writings. 

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give 
life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for 
hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for 
wound, stripe for stripe." — Ex. 21:23-25. 

''He that killeth any man shall surely be put to 
death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it 
good; beast for beast. x\nd if a man causeth a blem- 
ish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be 
done to him ; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for 
tooth: as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it 
be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, 
he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall 
be put to death."— Lev. 24:17-21. 

"And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for 
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot 
for foot."— Deut. 19:21. 



Capital prxlsHMKNt. :)45 

The reader should observe that the statute of Moses, 
which commanded the taking of eye for eye, and tooth 
for tooth, is the same that enjoined capital punish- 
ment, in the expre'^Jsion "life for life." If Jesus abol- 
ished this statute, he abolished it as a whole, and men 
should no longer be punished according to the rule of 
''eye for eye, tooth for tooth," nor of ''life for life." 
Modern civilization sets aside this statute of Moses 
completely, except that little clause in it which required 
the taking of life for life. It would be considered 
inhuman to punish one who has destroyed an eye or a 
hand of a fellow man by depriving him of the same 
member: but to take life for life, a thing which is a 
thousand times more wicked, is thought to be in perfect 
harmony with the gospel and modern civilization. 

If we are to practice the capital punishment enjoined 
by Moses, why not carry it out according to his in- 
struction? He required that capital punishment 
should be administered not only unto those who take 
life but also unto those who break the Sabbath, curse 
father or mother, commit adultery, or steal a man and 
sell him for a slave, etc. We would think it inhumuu 
and contrary to the spirit of the gospel to administer 
capital punishment to one who had merely cursed 
father or mother. We must therefore admit that at 
least a part of Moses' capital punishment was contrary 
to the spirit of the gospel, and if a part was wrong-, 
may not all of Moses' laws regarding capital punisli- 
ment be wrong? I am not denying the inspiration of 



8-46 THE BETTEK TE^TAMENl^. 

Moses' law, but simply teaching as I have throughout 
this volume, that it was not a revelation of God's per- 
fect will concerning man, and is not therefore a fit 
standard of government for the gospel dispensation. 
One of the saddest thoughts connected with capital 
punishment is that a great many innocent lives are de- 
stroyed. Criminals to-day are not judged with the 
degree of justice that Moses required. He commanded 
that capital punishment should be administered only in 
cases that were established by two witnesses (Deut. 
17:6; 19:15; Num. 35:30), but modern civiliza- 
tion (?) can destroy the life of one accused, of murder 
upon the opinion of twelve men, without a single 
witness. They claim to have circumstantial evidence, 
but that is no evidence. Trae evidence .is positive 
knowledge, and nothing less. The life of many a poor 
man has been destroyed by a jury when not a single 
man of the twelve could swear before Almighty God 
that the condemned man was guilty. They passed 
their opinipn against him from the circumstances they 
had heard rehearsed, but it was all circumstantial — 
nobody knew for certain. There were perhaps more 
than twelve well-balanced men who heard the evidence 
from beginning to end, and who were of the opinion 
that the accused was innocent; but they did not sit to 
judge the case; hence the poor man must die. In 
many cases later evidences have developed to prove the 
innocence of the one who had been executed; but it 
came too late. His life had been taken away from the 



CAt^ifAL J*Ui^iSHMEXT. 34t 

earth and could not be restored. How much better, 
and how much more in accordance with Christianity 
would it be to imprison such accused men that a 
chance to prove their innocence might, to say the 
least, be possible. 

If capital punishment be administered at all, it 
should be in cases only that are established by wit- 
nesses who know positively that the accused is guilty. 
This would be a great advancement in modern civiliza- 
tion, but would yet be contrary to the mercies of the 
gospel of Christ. Criminals should be imprisoned, 
not slain. Oh, the hearts of mothers, sisters, and 
wives that are broken by the inhuman practice of kill- 
ing criminals! How much better for the race of 
humanity would it be for criminals to be preserved 
alive. Sad indeed it is to know that one who is near 
and dear to us by the ties of nature, has taken the life 
of a fellow mortal; but it would be a consolation, in 
the face of this sadness, to know that the criminal, 
whose very being is so dear to us, is yet in the land of 
the living where the gospel of Christ may yet reach his 
poor soul and deliver him from that awful hell in the 
beyond. The broken hearts of the relatives of the 
many thousands of criminals executed annually in the 
world can but have a depressing and perhaps degrading 
influence upon future generations. 

But would life imprisonment have as great a tend- 
ency to restrain crime as capital punishment? Beyond 
doubt it would be a greater restraint: because, first. 



348 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

there are few criminals who do not look upon life im- 
prisonment with greater dread than upon capital pun- 
ishment; second, there would be fewer acquittals if 
the jurors knew the condemned would not be doomed 
to suffer capital punishment. 

Those who favor capital punishment sometimes 
argue that it would incur a great expense to hold all 
the murderers as prisoners for life; but the expense 
will not outweigh the value of human life; besides, 
prisons are not a great expense, as the labor obtained 
is valuable to the government. 

If we should adopt, universally, life imprisonment 
instead of capital punishment, we would be following 
the example set by the Most High in the punishment 
of the first murderer. God told him that he should 
be "a fugitive, and a vagabond in the earth." And 
when Cain said in reply, "It shall come to pass that 
every one that findeth me shall slay me," the Lord 
said, ''Whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be 
taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark 
upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." — 
Gen. 4:12-15. According to this scripture the Lord 
placed as great a value upon the life of Cain as upon 
the life of others, and declared that if any man should 
slay Cain, vengeance should be taken upon him seven- 
fold. This surely shows the mind of God regarding 
murderers: and if we follow his sublime example, we 
shall consider all human life a sacred thing: and 
when we convict a man of murder, we shall imprison 



MATRIMONY RESTORED. 349 

him for life, and thus make him "a fugitive and a 
vagabond in the earth." But we should not, under 
any circumstance, allow him to be slain; and should 
he be murdered by another, we should avenge his 
death as we would avenge the death of any other. 



MATRIMONY RESTORED TO THE EDENIC 
STANDARD. 



We read concerning God's creation of man that 
''male and female created he them."^Gen. 1:27; 
5 :2. In this act of the Creator he exemplified the 
true sacredness of the married state. By the creation 
of but one male and one female he showed that it was 
his intention that no man should have a plurality of 
wives, and that no woman should have a plurality of 
husbands. Hence we may say that the laws of Eden 
disallowed both polyandria and polygamy. 

In Gen. 2:23 we read that Adam said on the presen- 
tation of his wife unto him after her creation, "This 
is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she 
shall be called woman, because she was taken out of 
man." Upon his saying this the Lord* added, 
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his 
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall 
be one flesh." This law of Eden prohibited a dissolv- 
ing of the marriage bond; because it states that in 

* The wording of Gen. 2:23, 24 seems to convey the idea that Moses is the 
author of these words, but Jesus in Matt. 19:5 ascribes them unto the Creator. 



350 THK BETTER TESTAMENT. 

matrimony the two shall be one flesh. Therefore it 
might be said that there was no divorcement in the 
laws of Eden. 

It is not known how long man adhered to these holy 
laws of matrimony after the fall, though we have no 
account of any who practiced polygamy before the time 
of Lamech, of whom it is written, ''And Lamech took 
unto him two wives : the name of the one w^as Adah, and 
the name of the other was Zillah." — Gen. -4:19. From 
Lamech 's time the sacred institution of matrimony 
seems to have been dragged almost to a level with the 
brute creation. 

Moses enacted certain regulations of the marriage 
relation, such as forbidding mixed marriages with the 
heathen nations that inhabited the holy land before 
the Israelites (Dmit. 7:3, 4), and confined marriages of 
each member of the Jewish nation within his respective 
tribe (Xum. 3(i:5-12): but he made no corrections of 
the corruptions of the married state, except to prohibit 
polyandria, as may be seen by the laws of jealousy 
recorded in Xum. 5:11-31. 

Polygamy was allowed by Moses, as the following 
quotation from his law will show: "If a man have two 
wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have 
borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; 
and if the first-born son was hers that was hated: then 
it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that 
which he hath, that he may not make the son of the 
beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which 



MATRIMONY RESTORED. 351 

is indeed the first-born: but he shall acknowledge the 
son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a 
double portion of all that he hath; for he is the begin- 
ning of his strength: the right of the first-born is 
his."— Dent. 21:15-17. 

Concerning divorcement Moses wrote, "And if any 
one should take a wife, and should dwell with her, 
then it shall come to pass, if she shall not have found 
favor before him, because he has found some unbecom- 
ing thing in her, that he shall write for her a bill of 
divorcement, and give it into her hands, and he shall 
send her away out of his house. And if she should go 
away and be married to another man; and the last 
hu-band should hate her, and write for her a bill of 
div'>rcement, and should give it into her hands, and 
send her away out of his house, and the last husband 
should die, who took her himself for a wife; the for- 
mer husband who sent her away shall not be able to 
return and take her to himself for a wife, after she liaj=; 
been defiled; because it is an abomination before tln^ 
Lord thy God, and ye shall not defile the land, which 
the Lord thy God gives thee to inherit." — Deut. 
•24:3-6, from LXX. 

According to this text Moses allowed a man to 
divorce his wife if she did not find favor with him or 
if he hated her. This would cover every case wherein 
it was desired. Hence it might truly bo said that 
Moses allowed a divorcement for every cause, and 
placed no restrictions whatever on the wicked practice 



352 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

of breaking the marriage bond. Therefore as might 
be supposed, divorcement, second marriages, and 
polygamy went right on under the law of Moses among 
the Israelites, unrestricted and to the same extent as 
among the heathen nations, until the coming of the 
Savior. 

One of the sublimest achievements of our Savior's 
ministry upon earth was the restoration of matri- 
mony to the sacred laws of Eden. In his first sermon 
which we have upon record (that delivered upon the 
mount) he says, "It hath been said. Whosoever shall 
put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce- 
ment: but I say unto you, that whosoever shall put 
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, 
causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall 
marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery." — 
Matt. 5:31, 32. Jesus here makes a clear reference to 
Moses' law concerning divorcement, and shows that 
he was lifting up a higher standard than Moses had 
lifted up, in two senses. First, Moses allowed a separa- 
tion for any and every cause, but he permitted it for 
the cause of whoredom only. Second, Moses had 
made the divorced parties free to marry, but Jesus for- 
bade those who were separated even for the cause of 
whoredom to marry, with the words, "Whosoever shall 
marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." The 
reader will readily perceive that the Son of God is here 
restoring matrimony to the standard of Eden, whicli 
has been previously set forth, 



MATRIMONY RESTORED. 363 

A discussion of the subject of divorcement once took 
place between Christ and the Pharisees, an account of 
which is found in Matt. 19. They approached him, 
saying, ''Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife 
for every cause?" — Ver. 3. "And he answered and 
said unto them. Have ye not heard that he which made 
them at the beginning made them male and female, 
and said. For this cause shall a man leave father and 
mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain 
shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, 
but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined 
together, let not man put asunder." — Verseb 4-6. In 
these verses it is clear to be seen that Jesus' teaching 
concerning matrimony is only a re-enactment of the 
laws that had been enjoined upon the first couple in 
the garden of Eden. He quotes for an argument Gen. 
1 :27, which shows that in the beginning God made 
man male and female. This is proof that he cuts off 
all polygamy and polyandria as God did in the garden 
of Eden. He then quotes Gen. 2:24, where God in 
the beginning had said that two should become one 
flesh in marriage. And then he says, ''Wherefore 
they are no more twain." These words surely forbid 
the dissolving of the marriage bond and the marriage 
of divorced parties. Under his law as has been pre- 
viously shown, a man may be separated from his wife 
in the case of a violation of the marriage bed, but even 
in such a case the separation is not so complete as to 

admit of a marriage to another party, for if so, they 

23 



354 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

would truly be twain. But ''they are no more twain." 
Never while they both live can either be free to marry 
another. This idea is affirmed also by the command, 
" iVhat therefore God hath joined together let not man 
put asunder." Every bill of divorcement issued by 
the courts of men since Jesus gave this command- 
ment has been a violation of it. 

"They say unto him, Why did Moses then com- 
mand to give a writing of divorcement, and to put 
her away? He saith unto them Moses because of the 
hardness of your hearts sufiEered you to put away your 
wives: but from the beginning it was not so." — Verses 
7, 8. This answer of Christ to the Pharisees shows 
that Moses' teaching concerning divorcement was 
merely a conformity to the sinfulness of the hearts of 
the people of his age. It was therefore destined to 
pass away with the rest of Moses' system. As Christ 
came to remove sin completely from man's nature, 
thus restoring him to the Adamic purity, it is certainly 
reasonable that he should restore also the sacred laws 
of matrimony that were instituted in the beginning. 

''And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away his 
wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry 
another, committeth adultery: and whosoever mar- 
rieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." — 
Ver. 9. This text as it stands in the authorized version 
seems to teach that after all there is a privilege gr.inted 
to those who may be divorced for the one cause to 
marry again. But there are excellent reasons for 



MATRIMONY RESTORED. 355 

believing that the foregoing is not the original word- 
ing of the text. A foot-note on this text in the Em- 
phatic Diaglott says, ''Vaticaj?^ Manuscript — On 
account of loJioredom^ causes her to commit acbiltery^'''' 
etc. Upon this authority the author of the work men- 
tioned translates the text as follows: ''But I say to 
you, Whoever dismisses his wife, except on account 
of whoredom, causes her to commit adultery; and he 
who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." 
This wording leaves out entirely the "marry another," 
and throws the text in harmony with the rest of the 
Savior's teaching in this and other parts of the gospels. 
A note in the Revised Version says, *'Some ancient 
authorities read saving for the cause of fornication^ mah- 
eth her an adulteress; as in chapter 5:32." This gives 
additional reason for believing that the translation of 
the Emphatic Diaglott is correct. I doubt not that 
these are the true words of the Savior. 

This same conversation between Christ and the 
Pharisees on the subject of divorcement or a similar 
one is recorded in Mark 10:2-9. But the words of 
Matt. 19:9 are omitted. However an additional 
account of a subsequent conversation between Christ 
and his disciples on the same subject is given as fol- 
lows: "And in the house his disciples asked him again 
of the same matter. And he said unto them, AVhoso- 
ever shall put away his wife, and marry another, com- 
mitteth adultery against her. And if a woman shall 
|jut away her husband, and be married to another, 



356 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

she committeth adultery." — Verses 10-12. The mar- 
riage of divorced persons is here made adultery without 
a single exception. If it be, as it truly seems, the same 
incident recorded in Matt. 19 and Mark 10, it is en- 
tirely unreasonable to sappose that Jesus taught in the 
conclusion of his conversation with the Pharisees that 
the marriage of divorced persons was legal when they 
were divorced for the cause of adultery according to 
the authorized version of Matt. 19:9, and then imme- 
diately afterwards told some of his disci [)les in private 
conversation that marriages of divorced persons without 
a single exception were adulterous according to Mark 
10:10-12. We are therefore constrained to adopt the 
wording of Matt. 19:9, which throws it in accordance 
with Matt. 5:32, as the true words of the Lord; and 
we have thus a harmony of all the teachings of the 
Savior on the subject of marriage. 

There is yet one saying of Christ upon this impor- 
tant subject. "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and 
marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever 
marrieth her that is put away from her husband com- 
mitteth adultery." — Luke 16:18. Comments are 
unnecessary here, as this only reaffirms what we have 
seen to be taught in other texts. These are all the 
sayings of Christ upon this subject recorded in the 
gospels, and we might sum up all he has said as fol- 
lows. First, polyandria and polygamy may never be 
practiced. Second, a man or woman may put away a 
companion for the cause of whoredom, but even in that 



MATKIMOXV KKSTOKEl) — CONCLrDED. 357 

case is not allowed to obtain a divorce and marry 
another. Third, death is the only true release from the 
marriage bond. 



MATRIMONY RESTORED TO THE EDENIC 
STANDARD— CONCLUDED. 



In^ the former chapter I have shown that the ISavior 
condemns the divorce and forbids the marriage of 
those who are divorced while their former companions 
live. In this chapter I desire to show the same senti- 
ments set forth by the apostle Paul. He says in Rom. 
7:1, 2, ''Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them 
that know the law), how that the law hath dominion 
over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman 
which hath an husband is bound by the law to her 
husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be 
dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." 

It is generally supposed that the law spoken of here 
by Paul, which he says binds the woman to her hus- 
band as long as he liveth, is the law of Moses, but this 
is a mistake. I have previously shown that the law of 
Moses allowed a divorcement for any and every cause; 
hence that could not be the law that binds the woman 
to her husband as long as he liveth. Moses' law never 
bound husband and wife together for life, except as 
a punishment for crime. Deut. 22:19, 29. Evidently 
the apostle is here speaking of the law of Christ, which 



358 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

is the only code ever given that binds husbands to their 
wives, and wives to their husbands as long as life con- 
tinues, without a single exception. We do not mean 
to say by this latter expression that Christ required 
men to live with lewd companions; he permitted a 
separation in such cases, as has been previously shown, 
but he did not even in such cases dissolve the bond of 
matrimony to the extent that either party was free to 
marry again. 

The conclusion drawn by the apostle from the fact 
that the law of Christ bound husband and wife 
together as long as they both lived is as follows: ''So 
then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to 
another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if 
her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so 
•that she is no adulteress, though she be married to 
another man." — Ver. 3. The apostle's teaching here 
can not easily be misunderstood. He expresses him- 
self plainly, and all can see that he teaches the same 
as the Savior teaches, that nothing but death can dis- 
solve the bond of matrimony. 

In 1 Cor. 7:39 he again sets forth the standard of 
Christ's law on matrimony as follows: ''The wife is 
bound by the law as long as her husband liveth, but if 
her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to 
whom she will; only in the Lord." It is plain to be 
seen that Paul knew nothing about any dissolution of 
the bond of matrimony for any cause whatever, to the 
extent that either party was at liberty to be married 



MAtRIMONY REStOREt) — CONCLUDED. B59 

again while the former companion lived. He binds 
them together until separated by death, after which he 
says they are at liberty to be married to whom they 
will, only in the Lord; that is, they must marry a 
saved person. 

In the same chapter from which I have quoted, the 
apostle considers the subject of saved and unsaved 
people living together in matrimony. His words are : 
''If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and 
she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her 
away. And the woman which hath an husband that 
believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, 
let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband 
is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
sanctified by the husband: else were your children 
unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbeliev- 
ing depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not 
under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us 
to peace." — Verses 12-15. There are many circum- 
stances under which a saved and an unsaved person 
may be yoked together in matrimony. They are not 
allowed to marry, but where two sinners have been 
married and one seeks the Lord; or two saints are 
married and one backslides, or in any other case 
in which they have been married, it matters not 
whether either or both are saints or sinners, the mai- 
riage bond must by no means be dissolved, nor can it 
be legally dissolved while both live. True, he sa)''s, 
''If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother 



360 THE BETTER TESTAMEKf. 

or a sister is not under bondage in such eases," but he 
does not allow the believing to depart from the unbe- 
lieving (except in cases of whoredom) ; that is, if the 
unbeliever be pleased to dwell with the believer. 

By the saying, ''A brother or a sister is not under 
bondage in such cases," he does not mean that the 
marriage bond is broken, and that the believer has a 
right to seek another companion, because he says in 
another place, ''Let not the wife depart from her hus- 
band: but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or 
be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband 
put away his wife." — Verses 10, 11. According to 
this, if it is by any means possible, the believer must 
cling to his unbelieving companion. And if living 
together is impossible, he must remain single so long 
as his companion lives. The real meaning of Paul's 
expression, "A brother or a sister is not under bondage 
in such cases," is this. He means to lighten the 
hearts of all who may be thus abandoned by unbe- 
lievers, with the idea that they are not to be blamed 
and are not under condemnation before God. Gener- 
ally such separations are caused by the simple fact that 
one of the parties has sought the Lord, and the other 
being determined that his companion must give up 
the service of the Lord, dissolves the union because he 
or she will not. Such are to feel perfectly free in 
their conscience before God; for God never allows, 
much less requires, us to forsake him for the sake 
of a companion, but he requires us to cling to him 



Matrimony restored — concLlded. 361 

although we should be abandoned by our companion. 
Since it is seen that both Jesus and Paul completely 
ignore divorcement, and bind husbands to their wives 
and wives to their husbands as long as they both live, 
and pronounce all marriages under any circumstance to 
a second companion while the former lives, adulterous, 
it might be asked, What instructions shall be given 
to those who have thus unscripturally married? 1 am 
not at all favorable to the idea of requiring a separation 
in every case; because many have entered into unscrip- 
tural marriages ignorantly, and Jesus taught that igno- 
rance excuses men who do contrary to our heavenly 
Father's will. John 15:22-24; 9:39-41. If ignorance 
of God's law is an excuse for those who do evils, it: is 
an excuse for those who ignorantly enter into an un- 
scriptural marriage relation. Therefore men can 
obtain and retain salvation in such unscriptural mar- 
riages where they have entered into them in blindness 
and in sin : but let every man beware how he enters 
into such a marriage knowingly. Where men witli 
clear light upon the subject enter marriage unscrip- 
turally, I believe it to be one of the most heinous 
of sins, and almost unpardonable. 

There is yet one thotight that it is specially necessary 
to consider here. It is that of persons who are un- 
scripturally yoked in the marriage relation, entering 
into the ministry. Concerning this matter Paul says 
an elder must be ''the husband of one wife." — 1 Tim. 
3 :2. ''Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife." — 



362 THE BETTEK TESTAMENT. 

Ver. 12. It is highly necessary that we understand just 
what the apostle means to teach here. It has been 
inferred by some that he has special reference to the 
custom of polygamy that was practiced in ancient 
times. Beyond doubt his words forbid that, but they 
forbid some other things also. Since we have seen 
that only death can dissolve the marriage bond to the 
extent that the second marriage can be scripturally 
entered, every man who has been married to a second 
living companion is the husband of two wives, and 
every woman who has been married to a second living 
companion is the wife of two husbands; therefore such 
persons can not be scriptural elders or deacons. But 
it might be asked, Would the fact that a man's wife 
has two living companions hinder him from entering 
the ministry? It surely would, because it is the un- 
scripturalness of the marriage that hinders, and the 
marriage is unscriptural if either have two living 
companions. The unscripturalness of their marriage 
will follow them and continue to be a blot upon 
their character. Hence such can not be ministers; 
because the elder or minister must be blameless. 
1 Tim. 3:2. It might yet be asked. Supposing in such 
cases a separation be made, would that admit them into 
the ministry? By no means, because the fact contin- 
ues the same as it Avas, before God and before the 
people. The same blot is upon his character; besides, 
as we have previously stated, persons thus married in 
ignorance, should continue as they are. So we would 



A IIIOHKH STAXI)ARr» OF HEALINC;. ^H:} 

iiflvise all such to cling to their companions and settle 
down and live a humble devoted life to God, and let 
God use in the ministry those whom he shall call, who 
have no such blots upon their characters, that the min- 
istry be not blamed. 



A HIGHER STANDARD OF HEALING. 



The tenor of this entire volume shows that God 
revealed himself only in part in the law of Moses. In 
nothing is this fact more clearly demonstrated than 
with respect to his healing power. In the law God 
gave the Hebrews the following promises of healing. 
"And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall 
bless thy bread, and thy water ; and I will take sick- 
ness away from the midst of thee." — Ex. 23:25. 
"And the Lord will take away from thee all sick- 
ness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, 
which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them 
upon all them that hate thee." — Deut. 7:15. These 
texts contain the substance of all the healing clearly 
promised in the law of Moses. Lender it they could 
be delivered from all manner of sickness by complying 
with the conditions of obedience set forth in the 
contexts. 

There is a very peculiar standard of healing set forth 
in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, which I 
quote, as follows: "Honor a physician with the honor 



364 THE BETTEK TESTAMENT. 

due unto him for the uses which ye may have of him: 
for the Lord hath created him. For of the Most High 
Cometh liealing, and he shall receive honor of the king. 
The skill of the physician shall lift up his head: and 
in the sight of great men he shall be in admiration. 
The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth ; 
and he that is wise will not abhor them. Was not the 
water made sweet with wood that the virtue thereof 
might be known? And he hath given men skill, that 
he might be honored in his marvelous works. With 
such doth he heal [men], and taketh away their pains. 
Of such doth the apothecary make a confection; and 
of his works there is no end; and from him is peace 
over all the earth. My son, in thy sickness be not 
negligent : but pray unto the Lord, and he will make 
thee whole. Leave oif from sin, and order thine hands 
aright, and cleanse thy heart from all wickedness. 
Give a sweet savor, and a memorial of fine flour; and 
make a fat offering, as not being. Then give place to 
the physician; for the Lord hath created him: let him 
not go from thee; for thou hast need of him. There 
is a time when in their hands there is good success. 
For they shall also pray unto the Lord, that he would 
prosper that which they give for ease and remedy to 
prolong life. He that sinneih before his Maker, let 
him fall into the hands of the physician." — Chap. 
38:1-15. 

The author of this text teaches very clearly that the 
sick man shall trust both the Lord and the physician. 



A HIGHER STANDARD Oi^ HEALING. 365 

Peculiar as this doctrine seems, it is indeed a correct 
exposition of the law of Moses. Moses as has been 
previously shown promised the people that God would 
take away from them all sickness, and yet he com- 
manded, ''And if men strive together, and one smite 
another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, 
but keepeth his bed: if he rise again, and walk abroad 
upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: 
only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause 
him to be thoroughly healed." — Ex. 21 :18, 19. In the 
LXX. the commandment is, "Only he shall pay for the 
loss of his time, and for his healing." This text surely 
requires the employment of a physician ; so after all, the 
author of Ecclesiasticus was orthodox in his teaching. 
Many people to this day teach as did the author of 
Ecclesiasticus, that we must trust the Lord for our 
healing and at the same time employ a physician, but 
this is only another proof that they are yet groping 
under the low standard of Moses, under which God 
seems to have worked in conjunction with the 
physician. 

We have seen that the law of Moses promised the 
healing of all sickness. As a distinction might con- 
sistently be made between sicknesses and diseases we 
could not say that Moses promised the people a heal- 
ing of every ailment, but only those that may be 
termed sicknesses. This premise is beyond doubt a 
true one; because it is shown very clearly in Leviticus 
that no promise was given for the healing of a leper by 



366 THE BETTEK TESTAMENT. 

the power of God. They were driven from the camp 
and required to be separated from their families, and 
to live alone as long as they were afflicted with lepr<>sy 
(Lev. 13:46), and should they meet any person, they 
were required to cry, "Unclean, unclean." Yerse 45. 
Leprosy was not considered incurable by Moses; be- 
cause he provided certain ceremonies of cleansing for 
those who might by any means become healed of that 
loathsome disease. Lev. 14. Lepers were sometimes 
healed in the Old Testament dispensation by the 
prophets, as in the cases of Naaman and Miriam. But 
these were only special cases and were, as we have 
seen, more than was promised in Moses' law. 

Besides the sicknesses and diseases with which a man 
might be afflicted he might be imperfect or infirm or 
impotent in some respect. From these also there was 
promised no deliverance in the law of Moses. 

The prophets of the old dispensation promised many 
healings in the new dispensation that were far greater 
than any provided for in the old covenant. The 
Psalms may be classed with the prophetic books; for 
Jesus himself said they contained prophecies concern- 
ing him. Luke 24:44. In the 103d Psalm we read 
concerning the promised Messias, "Bless the Lord, 
my soul, and forget not all his benefits: who forgiveth 
all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases." — 
Verses 2, 3. The law had promised to heal all sick- 
ness, but David here prophesied that Christ would be 
a healer of all diseases, Isaiah looked forward to the 



A HIGHER STANDARD OF HEALING. 307 

iutroduction of Christianity, and exclaimed, ''He will 
come a]id save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall 
be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 
Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the 
tongue of the dumb sing." — Isa. 35:5, 6. Verse 3 of 
the same chapter in the LXX. shows also that Christ 
should heal the palsy. Malachi prophesied concerning 
Christ as follows: "But unto you that fear my name 
shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his 
wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of 
the stall." — Mai. 4:2. No particular class of healing 
is specified here, bat the very tenor of the language 
seems to show that God's people were to expect won- 
derful healings at the coming of Christ. 

AVe might now take a look at the marvelous healing 
power manifested in the ministry of Christ, and given 
to the church by him. But first it might be well to 
consider that healings may properly be classified under 
three headings: First, The healing of sicknesses; 
Second, The healing of diseases (forasmuch as a man 
may be diseased and not be sick); Third, The healing 
of all imperfections in our bodies (forasmuch as a man 
may be imperfect physically and be neither sick nor 
diseased, as in the case of blindness, deafness, dumb- 
ness, etc.). The law, as previously shown, made pro- 
vision for the healing of sickness only and did not pro- 
vide for the healing of all diseases and imperfections 
of the body. But Jesus came with a perfect standard 
of healing. By this we mean to say that he came to 



368 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

heal all sicknesses, all diseases, and all imperfec- 
tions in our physical body. This I will proceed to 
prove. ^'And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching 
in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the 
kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all 
manner of disease among the people. And his fame 
went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him 
all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and 
torments, and those which were possessed with devils, 
and those which were lunatic, and those that had the 
palsy; and he healed them." — Matt. 4:23, 24. *'And 
great multitudes came unto him, having with them 
those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many 
others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he 
healed them: insomuch that the multitude wondered 
when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be 
whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and 
they glorified the God of Israel. "—Matt. 15:30, 31. 
Jesus is here shown to be a perfect healer according to 
the classification of healing given above. The former 
of these texts shows Jesus to be a healer of all manner 
of sickness and all manner of disease. The latter 
shows him to be a healer of such imperfections in our 
body as we might possess without being either sick or 
diseased. This is truly a perfect standard of healing, 
and never before the time of our Savior was a perfect 
standard of healing oilered to the world. 

Jesus gave the healing power in its fullness unto his 
apostles. "And when he had called unto him his 



A MUJIIKR STANDAKI) OF HEALIXG. 301) 

twelve disci[ les, he gave them power aguinst unclean 
spirits, to east them out, and to heal all manner of 
sickness, and all manner of disease." — Matt. 10:1. In 
this verse it is plainly stated that Jesus gave power 
unto his apostles to heal all manner of sickness and all 
manner of disease. In verse 8 he commands them to 
raise the dead. This shows that their power went 
beyond the healing of all disease and all sickness. 
x\fterward in their ministry we find them healing men 
born blind, and cripples born lame — healings which are 
not deliverances from sickness nor disease, but such as 
are contained in the third class of healing, namely, of 
imperfections apart from sicknesses and diseases. 

We sometimes hear men foolishly say that the heal- 
ing power was not to extend any further than the lives 
of the apostles. This is an error; because Paul shows 
that the perfect standard of healing is permanently 
established in the church. He shows that in the dis- 
tribution of the various callings, the Spirit of God 
gives unto some ''the gifts of healing." 1 Cor. 12:9. 
If any are inclined to confine the gifts of healing unto 
sicknesses and diseases, we have the remainder of 
divine healing set forth in another calling, that of 
working miracles. Verse 10. I am inclined to think 
that ''the gifts of healing" include every healing, and 
the gift of miracles includes miraculous performances 
apart from healing. But whether this is or is not the 
correct idea, it is very evident that a perfect standard 
of healing is here shown to be set permanently in the 



370 THK BETTER TESTAMENT. 

church. GoiVs people, therefore, in all the Christian 
dispensation, have ac(;ess to the same healing power 
hit was held up in the first century. 

The perpetuation of healing power in the Christian 
church is established upon two propositions. First, 
Jesus Christ continues with his church until the end 
of the world. Matt. 28:19, 20. Second, he continues 
the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Ileb. 13:8. 
Xow since he Avill be with his people until the end of 
the world and w^'ll never change, it is evident that he 
will manifest himself unto his people throughout the 
Christian dispensation as he did to his servants of the 
first century, if they will "only believe." 

The following texts plainly olfer Christ unto us as 
our healer. "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 
And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my 
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with 
new^ tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they 
drink any deadly thing, it shall not htirt them; they 
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." — 
Mark 16:16-18. "Is any among you afflicted? let him 
pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick 
among you? let him call for th elders of the church; 
and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in 
the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall 
save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if 
he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. 
Confess your fa nits one to another, and pray one for 



A BETTER ACCESS TO GOD. 371 

another, that ye may be hea^eJl. The effectual fervent 
prayer of a righteous man availeth much." — Jas. 
5:13-16. 



A BETTEE ACCESS TO GOT). 



While pondering in our minds the mighty works of 
faith that were performed by the prophets and other 
special instruments of the Lord in the Old Testament 
dispensation, if we knew not our privileges in the cur- 
rent dispensation, we might arrive at the conclusion that 
the people of God before Christ enjoyed a better access 
to God than the people of God in the Christian dispen- 
sation. But this is as great a mistake as is ever made by 
those who do not comprehend the superiority of the 
Xew Testament over the Old. It is true Paul in the 
eleventh chapter of Hebrews collects a great list of 
mighty miracles performed by the prayer of faith in 
the Old Testament dispensation, but it is to be remem- 
bered that he skimmed the cream off several thousand 
years to obtain it, and that few and generally but one 
of such mighty men as he there speaks of lived in the 
world at the same time: hence there were but few of 
those mighty acts of faith visible to the world at any 
one time in the old dispensation. 

A far greater list of mighty works miglit be compiled 
from the answers to the prayers of the Christians than 
Paul could possibly have compiled from the Old Testa- 



372 THE BETTlvR TESTAMENT. 

inent. And this list of mighty works of ChristiaDs 
might be swelled to infinity if people generally knew tlie 
power they have access to by faith in Christ. We have 
a far better access to God to-day than the people had 
under the Old Testament. 

In the old dispensation men could not be brought 
into a direct communion with God. The business 
for eternity, so to speak, transacted between God and 
the people in those times was transacted through 
agents. God had an agent and the people had an 
agent. The priest was the representative of the 
people, and the prophet was the representative of God. 
The people prayed through the priest, and God re- 
vealed his will to them through the prophet. There are 
exceptions to this rule recorded in the Old Testament, 
but they are rare. What we have stated was true of the 
generality. Under the 'New Testament the human 
family is brought into direct communion with God. 
Jesus abolished both the priest and the prophet; hence 
God no longer deals with us through a human repre- 
sentative, nor man with God through a human repre- 
sentative. There is no longer a middle man except 
Jesus the Son of God who sits as a mediator between 
God and man to satisfy the wrath of God and thus 
preserve this face-to-face communion of man with Go(\ 
We no longer send our petitions to God through a 
priest, but are instructed by the Savior to pray directly 
to the heavenly Father in his name. Jno. 16:23. On 
the other Ijand, God no longer reveaU h\> will oonccn - 



A BETTEU ACCESS TO GOD. 373 

ing us to a propliet and sends him around to exi)lain it 
to us, but speaks directly to each individual by his 
Holy Spirit, tlius revealing his will. The prophet 
Isaiah prophesied that in the New Testament dispensa- 
tion men would be all taught of God. Isa. 54:13. 
Jesus shows that this prophecy has special reference o 
the Christian dispensation. Jno. 6:4:5. Paul recog- 
nizes the same fact by his affirmation to the Thessalo- 
nians, ''For ye yourselves are taught of God." — 1 
Thess. 4:9. John also says, ''But the anointing which 
ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need 
not that any man teach you: but as the same anoint- 
ing teacheth you of all things, and is true, and is no 
lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in 
him." — 1 Jno. 2:27. John here has special reference 
to the abolition of the prophet as an agent to reveal 
God's will unto us, and shows conclusively that God's 
will is revealed unto every individual Christian by his 
Holy Spirit. 

The reason why it was proper that man should pray 
through the priest in the Old Testament dispensation 
was that God's wrath against him because of his wicl - 
edness had never been perfectly satisfied by a sin-sacri- 
fice. Man had therefore to approach God with a 
sacrifice, and as man could not approach God with a 
perfect sacrifice prior to the sacrifice of Christ's 
life upon the cross, all things were not within the 
reach of man's faith as it is since Jesus made the 
atonement. Paul spoke of this very thing in Rom. 



o74 THE ]5ETTEH TESTAMENT. 

8:32 — ''He that spared not his own Son, but delivered 
him up for us all, how shall he not with him also 
freely give us all things?" From this we see very 
clearly that all things are at our command since 
Jesus died. Not that he died to purchase all things 
for us; because we had not lost all things in Adam: 
but he died to purchase that which we had lost in 
Adam, namely, absolute purity, and this having been 
purchased we are again in perfect harmony with God ; 
hence he will through him that ledeemed us give unto 
us all things. This scripture should be taken in an 
unlimited sense by Christians, as the following sublime 
promises of the Sew Testament show. 

''And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, 
believing, ye shall receive." — Matt. 21:23. 

"Therefore I say unto you. What things soever ye 
desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and 
ye shall have them." — Mark 11 :24. 

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will 
I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." — 
Jno. 14:13. 

If ye shall ask anything in my name I will do it." — 
Ver. 14. 

"If ve abide in me, and mv words abide in you, ye 
shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." 
—Jno. 15:7. 

"And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the 
Father in my name, he will give it you." — Jno. 16:23. 



A BETTER ACCESS TO GOl). 3^5 

What an excellent list of promises. Such were 
never given in the law of Moses. We are promised 
whatsoever we ask, whatsoever w€ desire, whatsoever 
we will, anything, and all things. Could God have 
given us broader promises than these? If God's people 
will only believe God and launch out upon his prom- 
ises, they have within their reach a power capable of 
turning the moral world upside down, and of proving 
to the world that God is the same miraculous God to- 
day and just as near the human family as in any age of 
the past. Oh, how the centuries of apostate darkness 
have robbed God's people of their rights. The entire 
Christian dispensation should have been one contin- 
uous belt of universal miracles; whereas it has only 
known the fullness of God's power in isolated local- 
ities here and there. Let us assert our rights and take 
a stand against the power of the adversary, who will 
hinder our faith if he can, and we shall soon realize 
the testimony of the apostle John — "Whatsoever we 
ask, we receive of him, because we keep his command- 
ments, and do those things that are pleasing in his 
sight."—! Jno. 3:22. 

There is only one narrow exception in the promises 
of God to hearing our prayers in this gospel dispensa- 
tion. It is as follows: "And this is the confidence 
that we have in him, that, if we ask anything accord- 
ing to his will, he heareth us." — 1 Jno. 5:14. We 
have called this a narrow exception, and such it is in 
truth if properly understood. Unbelievino- professors 



376 THE iu:tter testament. 

of religion attempt to stretch it wide enough to cover 
almost all their prayers, but it was not so meant by the 
apostle. Sanctified people are perfectly resigned to 
the Avill of God; hence God's will has become their 
will, and such people are not very apt to make prayers 
contrary to God's will. Because of their fallibility it is 
possible that they should ask some things that would 
be contrary to God's w^ill, but this is not true concern- 
ing the generality of their prayers. Therefore we 
should not be too willing to grant that our petition is 
contrary to God's will, but should cling to the promise 
that we shall have whatsoever we ask, and if our peti- 
tion be truly contrary to God's will, and we are living 
within talking distance to God he will tell us. Xoi 
until we have received such revelation from God are 
w^e to give over the petition. 



REST. 

The law^ of Mose^ provided three special rests — a 
rest in the land of Canaan, which was a political re^t, 
a rest for their bodies every seventh day, and a rest for 
the land every seventh year. 

THE REST OF CAIS^AAN. 

AVhen speaking unto Moses concerning the entrance 
of the children of Israel into Canaan, God said, *'My 
presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest." 
— Ex. 33:14. Again, he promised in Deut. 12:9, 10: 
'Tor ye are not as yet come to the rest of the inher- 



itance, which the Lord your God givotli you. I>Mt 
when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the lanil which 
the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and wlion lie 
giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so 
that ye dwell in safety." Moses was not permit tc:l to 
lead the people into the Canaan rest promised in t'nese 
texts; for because of a transgression against God he 
was called into eternity and God gave the leadersliip of 
the people unto Joshua the son of Nun; through him 
God led the Israelites into the promised land and 
gave them the promised rest. 

"And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land wnich 
he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed 
it, and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest 
round about, according to all that he sware unto their 
fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies 
before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into 
their hand." — Josh. 21:43, 44. "And it came to pass 
a long time after that the Lord had given rest unto 
Israel, from all their enemies round about, that Joshua 
waxed old and stricken in age." — Josh. 2:3:1. 
"Rest" was a term used by the Jewish writers through- 
out the legal dispensation to designate the peace of their 
country. Almost every peaceful age is described witii 
the words "Then had the land rest from the enemies 
round about," "Then had the land rest from war," etc. 

THE REST FOR THE BODY. 

"Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the 
seventh dav thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine 



378 THE BETTER TESTAMEKT. 

ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and th(3 
stranger, may be refreshed." — Ex. 23:12. The Jewish 
sabbath, as this text shows, was a day of rest for both 
man and beast. Th«y held convocations upon that 
day, but rest was its principal feature. It is called 
'Hhe rest of the holy sabbath" in Ex. 16:23 and the 
sabbath of rest in Ex. 31:15; 35:2; Lev. 23:3. 

The sabbath was a day of rest without exception. 
Moses said concerning it in Ex. 34:21: "Six days thou 
shalt work, but on the seventh day thou slialt rest: in 
earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest." 

The sabbath was a day of absolute rest. Death was 
the penalty imposed upon the man w^ho performed 
labor upon it. "Six days shall work be done, but on the 
seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath 
of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein 
shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire through- 
out your habitations on the sabbath day." — Ex. 35:2, 
3. While the children of Israel were yet in the wilder- 
ness, they found a man gathering sticks upon the sab- 
bath day; they immediately placed him under arrest 
vntil the Lord commanded that they should stone 
him to death, and we are told that "all the congrega- 
tion brought him without the camp, and stoned him 
with stones, and he died." — Xum. 15:36. This seems 
like an act of cruelty, but it was only carrying out the 
commands of God respecting the sabbath day. 

The sabbath was enjoined upon the Israelites as a 
memorial of God's rest upon the seventh day at the 



REST. 379 

time of the creation. We read concerning God's rest 
after he had created the heavens and the earth in six 
days: "And he rested on the seventh day from all his 
work which he had made." — Gen. 2:2. Concerning 
the institution of the sabbath of the Jews, Moses said, 
"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, 
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: 
wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hal- 
lowed it."— Ex. 20:11. 

THE REST FOR THE LAND. 

Besides the rest for the bodies of man and beast, 
every seventh day, Moses provided a rest every seventh 
year for the land. "Six years thou shalt sow thy 
land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: but the 
seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the 
poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave tlie 
beast of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt 
deal with thy vineyard, and with thy olive-yard." — 
Ex. 23:10, 11. "Six years thou shalt sow thy field, 
and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather 
in the fruit thereof; but in the seventh year there 
shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for 
the Lord: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune 
thy vineyard. That which groweth of its own accord 
of thy harvest, thou shalt not reap, neither gather the 
grapes of thy vine undressed ; for it is a year of 
rest unto the land." — Lev. 25:3-5. 

THE REST FOR THE SOUL. 

It was foretold by the prophets that the Savior 



liSO TTtE BETTEU testament. 

should give rest unto his people. Isaiah prophesied 
concerning this rest, as follows: '^And in that day 
there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for 
an ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek : 
and his rest shall be glorious. "^—Isa. 11:10. When 
the Savior app,eared, he announced that he had come 
to give rest. His words are: ''Come unto me, all ye 
that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you 
rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I 
am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest 
unto your souls." — Matt. 11:28, 29. The nature of 
the rest offered here by the Savior differs from all the 
rests provided for in Moses' law. Moses had provided 
rest from enemies; rest for the body and rest for the 
land, but no rest for the soul; but Jesus has provided 
a rest for the soul. He makes no special provision for 
a rest to our country, our land, or our bodies; but by 
his great atonement he bestows upon us that perfect 
rest of soul that is intended to give us perfect 
happiness. 

The epistle of Paul unto the Hebrews shows that the 
spiritual rest given us in Christ is the antitype of those 
literal rests given unto the Jews by Moses. After 
quoting in chapter three, verses 7-11 a part of the 
95th Psalm, which speaks of the manner in whicii the 
children of Israel doubted God's word, and of God's 
oath which he swore at that time, saying, ''They shall 
not enter into my rest," he says, ''Take heed, brethren, 
lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in 



REST. 381 

departing from the living God." — Ver. 12. I am 
unable to understand Paul here if he is not teaching 
that there is a rest now to be obtained in Christ that is 
tlie perfect antitype of the rest God gave the Jews, 
from the nations round about, in Canaan. Yes, this is 
exactly what he is teaching; because he says in chapter 
4, verses 1, 2, ''Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise 
being left us of entering into his rest, any of you 
should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the 
gospel preached, as well as unto them; but the word 
preached did not profit them, not being mixed with 
faith in them that heard it." We can not easily mis- 
understand Paul here. He shows that the gospel was 
preached unto the Israelites in the wilderness and is 
also now preached to us in the Christian dispensation. 
The gospel that was preached in the wilderness was 
the promise of a rest in Canaan, from all the enemies 
round about, but the gospel now being preached to all 
nations is the blessed promise of that perfect rest of 
soul which as we have before seen, is provided for us 
in Christ. Many have believed that the rest spoken 
of by Paul in this place is not to be enjoyed until we 
reach heaven; but this is refuted in verse 3, which 
says, "For we which have believed do enter into rest." 
It is not said that we shall by and by enter into 
rest, but that we do enter into rest — present tense. 

With the latter part of verse 3, Paul begins to take 
up the rest of the seventh day, and shows that it was 
also typical of the spiritual rest of soul which we enjoy 



382 THE HETTER TESTAMENT. 

in Christ. His words are: ''As I have swi^ru in my 
wrath, If they shall enter into my rest: alth )iigh the 
works were finished from the foundation of the world. 
For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on 
this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all 
his works. And in this place agai ">, If they shall enter 
into my rest." — Verses 3-5. Paul here associates God's 
rest upon the seventh day at the creation with our spir- 
itual rest in Christ, in such a manner as to eniible i s 
to see that he understood the former to be a type of the 
latter. I do not think 'hat his words can be reason- 
ably interpreted in any other light. 

In verse 10 he says, "For he that is entered into hi.^ 
rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God 
did from his." In this verse we have a most beautiful 
thought: We who enjoy the spiritual rest in Christ, 
have ceased from our own works as God did from his at 
the time of the creation. We have seen before that the 
rest of the Jews every seventh day was a memorial of 
God's rest at thu creation, but it would be well to show 
here that the resc of the sabbath was not a perfect 
imitation of God's rest. It was a rest for the body; 
hence it could not be a perfect imi.^ation of God's rest. 
God worked six days and rested on the seventh; he 
also rested tlie eighth and ninth days, and has never 
since broken his rest: but the Jews, under the law, did 
not 'perfectly imitate this rest; they worked six days 
then rested for one day, then took up the same manuul 
labors again, then rested again upon the seventh dny, 



REST. 383 

and thus they must ever continue, because they could 
not maintain the body without performing' som.^ 
manual labors. The reader can readily see that wo 
can not perfectly imitate God's rest except we enter 
into a spiritual rest. The rest that Christ gives us is 
spiritual, hence may be a perfect imitation of God's rest. 
God rested from all his labors upon the seventh day and 
has continued to rest from his labors ever since, and 
we also rest from all our labors in a spiritual sense 
when we obtain salvation and rest unto our souls. Our 
works from which we cease, when we ejiter Christ's 
rest, is our former sinful life. Christ has made pro- 
vision in his grace for us to be ever kept from turning 
bade to these sinful works; hence we continue ever- 
more to rest from our labors, as God did from his. 

We have seen that inasmuch as the seventh-day sab- 
bath was a rest for the body, when manual labor vvas 
performed on that day, the body was sentenced to the 
penalty of death. This law, though so cruel in 
nature, when carried out under the system of Moses 
typified a sublime truth under the gospel. Our rest 
being that of the soul, should we turn again and per- 
form the works of the soul (our sins) from which 
Christ, by his grace, has caused us to rest, our soul 
Avould be called upon to pay the penalty of spiritual 
death ; hence we see that only by a continual life of 
righteousness, may we continue in the blessed rest of 
the gospel dispensation. 

In verses 8 and 9 Paul again takes up the rest of the 



384 THE IJETTER TESTAMENT. 

Israelites in lilei'ul Canaan as a type of the rest of soul 
the Christians now enjoy. He says: ''For if Jesus had 
given them rest, then would he not afterward have 
spoken of another day. There remainefch therefore a 
rest unto the people of God." The Jesus mentioned 
here was Joshua, who is called Jesus in the LXX., the 
version of the Old Testauient which was used by the 
apostolic church. Paul shows that Joshua did not give 
the people rest. He is speaking of the true spiritual 
rest. Joshua gave them a literal rest in Canaan from 
their enemies round about, but he did not give them 
that spiritual rest of soul that God has ever had in store 
for his people; hence says Paul, "There remaineth 
therefore a rest unto the people of God." Thank God 
that we have learned that this blessed rest is for us, and 
for us now, and have had the blessed favor bestowed 
upon us of entering into it and enjoying it to the 
perfect satisfaction of our souls. 

In conclusion I wish to call attention to a type of 
the twofoldness of salvation in the order in which 
Israel received the rests obtained under the law. The 
sabbath rests were received in the wilderness, and the 
"rest from enemies round about," in the land of 
Canaan. We have seen that the exodus from Egypt 
to the wilderness typifit^d justification, and from the 
wilderness to Canaan, sanctification. The rests 
obtained in the wilderness and in the promised land 
beautifully accord with this idea. The rest of the 
sabbiitlis was a rest from labor, and was typical of that 



THE CHURCH UXDER THE OLD TESTAMENT. 385 

rest from spiritual works (wicked works) obtained in 
justification; hence to arrange properly the type, they 
were all delivered to Israel in the wilderness. The 
rest "from enemies round about" typified the deliver- 
ance from inward foes of carnality, obtained in sancti- 
fication; hence, to complete the twofoidness of the 
type, this rest was not received until Israel entered 
into the promised land. 



THE OHUECH OF GOD UNDER THE OLD 
TESTAMENT. 



Church IS a derivative English word from kuriakos^ 
a Greek word wnich signfies the house of the Lord. 
Kuriakos never occurs in the New Testament nor 
in the Greek Old Testament (LXX.); hence to be 
accurate the word church has no place in the Bible. 
Church in the English New Testament is always from 
ekklesia^ a word which signifies an assembly. 

The King James committee used tne word church 
instead of assembly^ because the former had univer- 
sally supplanted the latter in their ume. The German 
kirche\ Danish kirke\ Swedish kyrka\ Scotch kirk,, 
and the English church are all derivatives of the Greek 
kuriakos. These terms signified to the various 
nations at the time the common version was made, 
what ekklesia did to the Greek Christians of the first 
centur}/ ; so it appears that the translators did not use 

25 



386 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

the word church with any intention of withholding the 
truth, but rather to use such a term as the common 
people would readily understand 

Just when or how the transition from ekkUsia 
(assembly) to kiiriakos (church) was made is a prob- 
lem yet to be solved. It was perhaps first properly 
applied to a house of worship, and afterwaids by a 
gradual usage became the designation of the body of 
worshipers; this would account for the application of 
this term, both to the house of worship and to the 
people who worship in the house, at the present day. 
Be this as it may, it is not my intention here to change 
Bible terms, but to set forth the true signification 
of their originals. I am not concerned about the 
lerms the people use, if they possess the scriptural 
idea. I shall let the word church stand as it is in the 
authorized version, only I shall take the liberty to 
adopt it as a uniform translation, and wherever ekklesia 
occurs in a text I may have occasion to use, I shall 
quote it church. But let it be remembered that I am 
conforming strictly to the scriptural idea; therefore 
when I shall use the word church its signification shall 
be an assembly of people; because in scripture it h;;s 
no other signification. 

There is no idea of the nature of the assembly con- 
tained in the word church; for the scriptures apply it 
to both secular and religious assemblies. The reader 
may verify this by referring to Acts 19:32, 39, 41, 
where the Greek lias ekklesia for the secular assembly 



THE CHURCH UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT. 387 

there mentioned. In its religious use the word church 
is used in both a local and a universal sense — local, 1 
Cor. 1:2; universal, Col. 1:24. 

THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS. 

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilder- 
ness with the angel which spake to him in the mount 
Sina, and with our father: who received the lively 
oracles to give unto us." — Acts 7:38. 

The Jewish nation is here called a church. In the 
authorized version the word church does not occur in 
the Old Testament, but in the original Hebrew and 
also in the LXX. its equivalent occurs many times. 
Ehklesia is applied to the Jewish people in the LXX. 
as frequently as it is applied to the body of believers 
in the New Testament. The King James translation 
from the Hebrew always, and the Bagster translation 
from the LXX. generally, use the words assembly and 
congrecfation instead of church. We will quote from 
Bagster's translation from the LXX. throughout this 
(^.hapter, using the word church in every instance where 
ekhlesia occurs in the original. We can not be justly 
faulted for this, since we are only adopting the trans- 
lation uniformly employed in the Xew Testament. 

LOCAL GATHERINGS ARE CALLED CHURCHES. 

*'And I appointed against them a great church." — 
?feh. 5:7. 

''And I shook out my garment, and said, So may 
God shake out every man who shall not keep to tliis 
word, froni his house, and from his labors, l)c sjimI! 



;j88 the better testament. 

be even thus shaken out, as an outcast and empty. 
And all the church said, Amen, and they praised the 
Lord : and the people did this thing." — Ver. 13. 

"S;) wlien Esdras had prayed, and when he had con- 
fessed, weeping and praying before the house of God, 
a very great church of Israel came together to him, 
men and women and youths; for the people wept, and 
wepr. aloud." — Ezra 10:1. 

"And David stood in the midst of the church, and 
said, Hear me, my brethren, and my people: it was in 
my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the 
covenant of the Lord, and a place for the feet of our 
Lord, and I prepared materials suitable for the build- 
ing."—! Chron. 28:2. 

''x\nd now I charge you before the whole church of 
the Lord, and in the audience of our God, keep and 
seek all the commandments of the Lord our God, that 
ye may inherit the good land, and leave it for your 
sons to inherit after you." — Yer. 8. 

"And Josaphat stood up in the church of Judah 
in Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, in front of the 
new court." — 2 Chron. 20:5. 

"And Oziel, the son of Zacharias, of the children of 
Banaias, of the sons of Eleiel, the sons of Matthanias 
the Levite, of the sons of Asaph — upon him came the 
Spirit of the Lord in the church." — Yer. 14. 

"And they brought the goats for a sin-offering 
before the king and the church; and laid their hands 
upon them." — 2 Chron. 29:23, 



TIIH CiniM'ir UNDER TIIH OLD TESTAMENT. 3h!) 

*'And all the church worshiped, and the psalm 
singers were singing, and the trumpets sounding, until 
the whole-burnt-sacrifice had been completely 
offered."— Ver. 28. 

"And a great multitude were gathered to Jerusalem 
to keep the feast of unleavend bread in the second 
month, a very great church." — 2 Chron. 30:13. 

"For a great part of the church was not sanctified; 
and the Levites were ready to kill the passover for 
every one who could not sanctify himself to the 
Lord."— Ver. 17. 

"And the church purposed together to keep other 
seven days: and they kept seven days with gladness." 
—Ver. 23. 

Verse 24 contains also the word church in the Greek, 
and verse 25 has it twice. 

"I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the 
midst of the church will I sing praise to thee." — Ps. 
21:22 (authorized version ?s. 22:22). 

"My praise is of thee in the great church: I will 
pay my vows before them that fear him." — Ver. 25. 

"My foot stands in an even place: in the churches 
will I bless thee, Lord."— Ps. 25:12 (A. V. Ps. 
26:12). 

"I will give thanks to thee even in a great church : 
in an adundant people will I praise thee." — Ps. 34:18 
(A. V. 35:18). 

"Praise God in the churches, the Lord from the 
fountains of Israel."— Ps. 67:26 (A. V. 68:26). 



300 THE HKTTER TESTAMENT. 

''The heavens shall declare thy wonders, Lord; 
and thy tratli in the charch of the saints." — Ps. 88:5 
(A. Y. Ts. 81) :5). 

''Let them exalt him in the church of his people, 
and praise liim in the seat of his elders." — Ps. 106:3'2 
(A. Y. Ps. 10r:32). 

"Sing to the Lord a new song: his praise is in the 
church of the saints." — Ps. 149:1. 

THE DAY OF THE CHURCH. 

"The day in which ye stood before the Lord our 
God in Choreb in the day of the church." — Deut. 
4:10. 

"And the Lord gave me the two tables of stone 
written with the finger of God, and on them there had 
been written all the words which the Lord spoke to 
you in the mountain in the day of the church." — ^Deut. 
9:10. 

"The Lord thy God shall raise up to thee a prophet 
of thy brethren, like me; him shall ye. hear : accord- 
ing to all things which thou didst desire of the Lord 
thy God in Choreb in the day of the church." — Deut. 
18:15, 16. 

The day of the church mentioned in these texts was 
memorable because of the wonders that transpired 
upon it. The entire Jewish nation was assembled at 
the foot of mount Sinai, and the Lord himself ad- 
dressed them from his lofty pulpit. The sermon 
preached w^as the ten commandments. This was 
Israel's first church service. It was doubtless hence 
called the "day of the church." 



THE CHURCH UNDEK THE OLD TESTAMENT. 391 

THE WHOLE NUMBER OF JEWS RESIDING IN A PAR- 
TICULAR CITY OR LOCALITY IS STYLED A CHURCH. 

"For the king, and all the princes, and all the 
church in Jerusalem, designed to keep the passover in 
the second month." — 2 Chron. 3:20. 

''And the proposal pleased the king and the 
church." — Yer. 4. 

THE ENTIRE JEWISH NATION IS STYLED A CHURCH. 

"And Moses spoke all the words of this song, even 
to the end, in the ears of the whole church." — Deut. 
32:1 (A. V. Deut. 31:30). 

"And all the tribes of Israel stood before the Lord 
in the church of the people of God, four hundred 
thousand footmen that drew the sword." — Judg. 20:2. 

"And David said to all the church of Israel." — 1 
Chron. 13:2. 

"And all the church said that they would do thus; 
for the saying was right in the eyes of all the people." 
— Vor. 4. 

"And Solomon kept the feast at that time seven 
days and all Israel with him, a very great church, 
fi'om the entering in of iEmath, and as far as the river 
of Egypt."— 2 Chron. 7:8. 

"And they sent and called him: and Jeroboam and 
all the church came to Roboam." — 2 Chron. 10:3. 

"And all the church of Judah made a covenant with 
the king in the house of God." — 2 Chron. 23:3. 

"So the warriors left the prisoners and the spoils 
before the princes and all the church." — 2 Chron. 
28:14. 



392 THE BETTER TESTAMIENT. 

"And all the church together were about forty-two 
thousand three hundred and sixty." — Ezra 2:64. 

Many moi:e texts might be added to this list, but 1 
have quoted sufficient to enable the reader to see that 
the Jewish people was God's church under the Old 
Testament. They were organized as a church in the 
wilderness. They were not called a church before 
their sojourn in the wilderness. Before they moved 
to Egypt, in the days of Joseph, they were but a 
family, and during the time that they remained in 
Egypt they were the proselytes of the Egyptians. 
This is clearly stated in the Greek of Ex. 22:21; 23:9, 
which texts correctly translated, read as follows: 
"And ye shall not hurt a proselyte, nor afflict him: 
for ye were proselytes in the land of Egypt." "And 
ye shall not afflict a proselyte, for ye know the heart of 
a proselyte; for ye yourselves were proselytes in the 
land of Egypt." A proselyte is a joiner; therefore 
the Israelites were the joiners of the Egyptians: but 
God led them out of the land of Egypt, after which 
he said unto them, "I am the Lord your God, who 
has separated you from all people." 

Moses was the organizer of the Jewish church; he 
appointed rulers over thousands and over hundreds, 
and over fifties and over tens to judge the smaller 
matters of the people. Ex. 18:25, 26. He also made 
himself the president of the church. The judges were 
his successors in the presidency. The smallest cases 
for judgment were laid before the ruler over ten; if 



THE GHtJRCH UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT. 31)3 

too hard for him, they were carried to the ruler over 
fifty; if too hard for him, to the ruler over a hundred; 
if too hard for him, to the ruler over a thousand; if 
too hard for him, to the president. Moses also gave 
his church a discipline (the Pentateuch), appointed 
seventy preachers (Num. 11:16, 17, 24, 2o), and did 
such other things as pertained to the perfect organiza- 
tion of the church. 

As the church of the Old Testament was constituted 
by the Jewish nation, natural birtli was the door into 
it; heMC3 every person born of Jewish blood was a 
member of the church. 

The door of the Jewish church was not, as some 
suppose, closed against all the Gentiles; there was 
another door by which they could enter as joiners, or 
proselytes. It may truthfully be said that Moses' law 
contained no hope for any who did not belong to the 
Jewish nation, but the proselytes were members of that 
nation. 

The following texts show the condition upon which 
a Gentile was made a proselyte Jew. "And if any 
proselyte shall come to you to keep the passover to the 
Lord, thou shalt circumcise every male of him, and 
then shall he approach to sacrifice it, and he shall be 
even as the original inhabitant of the land; no uncir- 
cumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one 
law to the native, and to the proselyte coming 
among you." — Ex. 12:48, 49. ''And the Jews had 
light and gladness, in every city and province wherever 



:)!)4 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

the ordinance was published: wherever the proclama- 
tion took place, the Jews had joy and gladness, feast- 
ing and mirth ; and many of the Gentiles were circum- 
cised, and becam.^ Jews, for fear of the Jews." — 
Esther 8:16, 17. Circumcision is here set forth as the 
condition upon which Gentiles were received into the 
Jewish church. Some other initiating ceremonies 
were added later by the Kabbis, but the circumcision of 
the males was all Moses required of the Gentiles 
to become Jewish converts. So the Jewish church 
had two doors of admission: that of natural birth, by 
which the iiatural-born Jews entered it involuntarily 
and unconditionally; and the door of proselytism, by 
which the Gentiles entered it voluntarily and condi- 
tionally. 

"Jfone of the Gentile nations were denied membership 
in the Jewish church except the Ammonites and 
Moabites. ''The Ammonite and Moabite shall riot 
enter into the church of the Lord, even until the 
tenth generation; he shall not enter into the church 
of the Lord, even forever: because they met you not 
with bread and water by the way, when ye went out 
of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam, 
the son of Beor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. But 
the Lord thy God would not harken to Balaam; and 
the Lord thy God changed the curses into blessings, 
because the Lord thy God loved thee. Thou shalt 
not speak peaceably or profitably to them all thy days 
forever. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, because 



Tin: ( HL'iicii INDKR Till: 01. 1) ti>taM):nt. :]1)o 

he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Kgyptian, 
because thou wa.^t a str; ngor in his land. If sons be 
born to them, in tlie third generation they shall enter 
into the church of the Lord."— Deut. 23:3-8. "In 
that day they read in the book of Moses in the ears of 
the people; and it was foujid written in it, that the 
Ammonites and Moabites should not enter into the 
church of God forever." — Xeh. 13:1. 

Every individual received into the Jewish church 
from the Gentile world was required to have a perfect 
physical body; also he was required to be of legiti- 
mate birth. See Deut. 23:1, 2. 

It is impossible to obtain a correct knowledge of the 
laws respecting the proselytes from the authorized vei- 
sion; because it uses the word ''stranger," which by 
no means expresses the idea contained in the original: 
therefore I quote a list of texts from the Bagstei 
translation of the LXX., correcting the rendering of 
proselutos wherever it is not properly translated pros- 
eli/te; by this moans these texts will be rendered so 
simple that they may be readily comprehended without 
the aid of commentation. 

THE PROSELYTES ^VERE REQUIRED TO KEEP THE 
SABBATH THE SAME AS THE XATITES. 

"But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord 
thy God; on it thou shalt do no work, thou, nor thy 
son, nor thy daughter, thy servant, nor thy maid- 
servant, thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any cattle of thine, 
nor the proselyte that sojourns with thee." — Ex. 
20:10. 



396 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

'SSix days slialt thou do thy works, and on the sev- 
enth there sliall be rest, that thine ox and thine ass 
may rest, and that the son of thy maid-servant, arid 
the proselyte may be refreshed." — Ex. 23:12. 
the proselytes as well as the natives were 
forbidde:n: to eat blood. 

* 'Therefore I said to the children of Israel, No soul 
of you shall eat blood, and the proselyte that abides 
among you shall not eat blood." — Lev. 17:12. 

THE :NrATIVES WERE FOBIDDEK TO HURT THE 
PROSELYTES. 

''And ye shall not hurt a proselyte, nor afflict him; 
for ye were proselytes in the land of Egypt." — Ex. 
22:21. 

THE JEWS WERE COMMANDED TO LOVE THE PROS- 
ELYTES AS THEMSELVES. 

"And if there should come to you a proselyte in 
your land, ye shall not afflict him. The proselyte 
that comes to you shall be among you as the native, and 
thou shalt love him as thyself . "—Lev. 19:33, 34. 

THE PROSELYTES WERE REQUIRED TO OFFER SACRI- 
FICES THE SAME AS THE i^ATIVES. 

"Every native of the country shall do thus to offer 
such things as sacrifices for a smell of sweet savor to 
the Lord. And if there should be a proselyte among 
you in your land, or one who should be born to you 
among your generations, and he will offer a sacrijBce, a 
smell of sweet savor to the Lord — as ye do, so the 
whole congregation shall offer to the Lord. There 



THE CHURCH UXJ)EK THE OLD TESTAMENT. 307 

shall be one law for you and for the proselytes abiding 
among you, a perpetual law for your generations ; as 
ye are, so shall the proselyte be before the Lord. 
There shall be one law and one ordinance for yon, 
and for the proselyte that abides among you." — Xuiii. 
15:13-16. 

TIJE PROSELYTES WERE REQUIRED TO PURIFY THEM- 
SELVES THE SAME AS THE NATIVES. 

''And he that gathers up the ashes of the lieifer 
shall wash his garments, and shall be unclean until 
evening; and it shall be a perpetual statute for the 
children of Israel and for the proselytes joined to 
them."— Num. 19:10. 

THE PROSELYTES HAD EQUAL RIGHT WITH THE 
NATIVES TO THE CITIES OF REFUGE. 

"Ye shall assign three cities on the other side of 
Jordan, and ye shall assign three cities in the land of 
Canaan. It shall be a place of refuge for the children 
of Israel, and for the proselyte, and for him that 
sojourns among you; these cities shall be for a place 
of refuge, for every one to flee thither who has killed 
a man unintentionally." — Num. 35:14, 15. 

THE JUDGES \VERE REQUIRED TO DEAL JUSTLY 
WITH THE PROSELYTES. 

"And I charged your judges at that time, saying. 
Hear causes between your brethren, and judge rightly 
between a man and his brother, and the proselyte that 
is with him."— Pent. 1:16, 



398 THE BhTTER TESTA MEXT. 

GOD EXECUTED JUDGMENT FOR AND LOVED THE 
PROSELYTES. 

"For the Lord your God, he is God of gods, and 
Lord of lords, the great, and strong, and terrible 
God, who does not accept persons, nor will he by any 
means accept a bribe: executing Judgment for the 
proselyte and orphan and widow, and he loves the 
proselyte to give him food and raiment. And ye shall 
love the proselyte, for ye were proselytes in the land of 
Egypt."— Deut. 10:17-19. 

THE PROSELYTES WERE COMMAKDED TO REJOICE THE 
SAME AS THE NATIVES. 

"And thou shalt rejoice in all the good things, which 
the Lord thy God has given thee, thou and thy family, 
and the Levite, and the proselyte that is within thee." 
— Deut. 26:11. 

As the Jewish church was but a secular institution it 
had not only a natural door of entrance into it, but it 
had also a literal rioor by which all its members passed 
out of it. It pertained to this world only, therefore, 
did not hold its members after death; hence death was 
the door by which all its members, whether faithful 
or unfaithful, passed out of it. It was the door of ex- 
communication from the Jewish church. Concerning 
the manner of dealing with unfaithful brethren Moses 
said: '^ Whatever soul, either of the natives or of the 
proselytes shall do anything with a presumptuous 
hand, he will provoke God; that soul shall be cut off 
from his people, for be has set at naught the word of 



THE BETTP:il CHURCH UNDER XEW TESTAMENT. 399 

the Lord and broken his commands: that soul shall be 
utterly destroyed, his sin is upon him." — Xum. 15:30, 
31. According to this men were to be excommunicated 
from the Jewish church for every sin they committed 
with a presumptuous hand, that is with a proud hand. 
There were many sins classed as presumptuous sins in 
the law of Moses, for all of which men were to be excom- 
municated, ilx'communication is here described as an 
utter destruction of the offender. By this is meant a 
cutting off out. of the land of the living, or temporal 
death, ^o other door of excommunication from the 
Jewish church is mentioned in Moses' law. 

From the time of Moses the Jewish people had only 
an ecclesiastical government until the days of Samuel 
the prophet, who organized them into a political 
nation, and appointed their first king. From Samuel's 
day to the coming of Christ the Jews had a politico- 
religious government, that is they had the church and 
state united. God gave them a king with reluctance, 
by which he showed his disapproval of their union of 
church and state. 



THE BETTER CHURCH OF GOD UNDER THE 
XEAV TESTAMENT. 



There are two great errors advanced in the ecclesi- 
astical world in regard to the church question. One is 
that God had no organized church under the Old 



40t) THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

Testament, and the other is that Jesus Christ has not 
organized a new church under the Xew Testament, but 
has merely improved the church of Moses and ex- 
tended it into the Gentile world. The former of these 
errors has been disproved in the preceding chapter, 
and the latter I shall refute in this. 

I begin with Matt. 16:18: ''And I say also unto 
thee. That tliou art Peter, and upon this rock will I 
build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it." Jesus here represents himself as an 
organizer of a church; he plainly says, "I will build 
my church"; we would, therefore, be ignoring his 
words to say that he did not build a church. 

AVe will turn next to the epistle unto the Hebrews: 
"And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a 
servant, for a testimony of those things which were to 
be spoken after; but Christ as a son over his own 
house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confi- 
dence and the rejoicing of the hope, firm unto the 
end." — Heb. 3:5, 6. The two churches, that of the 
Old Testament and that of the Xew, are here spoken 
of in the figure of two houses. The Old Testament 
church is represented as the house of Moses, and that 
of the Xew Testament as the house of Christ. Moses 
is said to have been faithful as a servant of God in his 
house, and Christ is said to be faithful as a son of God 
in his house. Christ's house, or church, according to 
this text must be greater than Moses' church, inas- 
niuch as the son is greater than the servant. Tliat 



THE BETTER CHURCH UKDER NEW TESTAMENT. 40 L 

the term ''house" in this text signifies a church is 
evident from Paul's first epistle to Timothy, in which 
he says the house of God is "the church of the living 
God." — Oh. 3:15. He is speaking here of Christ's 
house, and if Christ's house is the church of the New 
Testament, Moses' house must have been the church 
of the Old Testament. 

We will notice the nature of Christ's church in com- 
parison with the church of Moses. "Ye also, as lively 
stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priest- 
hood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God 
by Jesus Christ." — 1 Pet. 2:5. Christ's church is 
here denominated a spiritual house; Moses' church 
was not a spiritual house, but ruerely of a secular 
nature; it was constituted by a literal nation of flesh 
and blood, while Jesus' church is constituted by a 
spiritual nation who are saved by grace — the general 
body of true Christians. Paul defined the New Testa- 
ment church as follows: "And have put all things 
under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things 
to the church, which is his body." Again, in Col. 
1:24 he says, "Who now rejoice in my suflferings for 
you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions 
of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the 
church." These texts make the body of Christ and 
the church identical. This is the only universal signi- 
fication the word church has in the New Testament. 
The body of Christ is composed of all the true mem- 
bers of Christ; hence we have in these scriptures a 

26 



4:02 THE BETTER TESTAMEi^^T. 

proof of my assertion that the churcli is constituted 
by all those who are saved by grace. 

We have seen in the former chapter that Moses' 
church was a secular arrangement, and had therefore 
literal doors by which men entered into it, and a literal 
door through which men passed out of it. So likewise 
we shall now see that inasmuch as Christ's church is 
of a spiritual nature, it has a spiritual door of admis- 
sion into it and a spiritual door of expulsion from it. 

The door of admission into Christ's church is ex- 
plained in 1 Cor. 12:13 — ''For by one Spirit are we 
all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been 
all made to drink into one Spirit." The one body 
mentioned here is the one body of Christ, which I 
have before shown to be the church of the New Testa- 
ment. The baptism of the Spirit which makes us 
members of the church of Christ, is the same experience 
that is elsewhere in the New Testament denominated 
the birth of the Spirit. This is the only door through 
which men may enter tne Xew Testament church. 
Natural birth made men members of the Jewish 
church, but a spiritual birth is required to make us 
members of the Christian church. 

Let us now compare the door of excommunication 
from the New Testament church with the door of ex- 
communication from the Old Testament church. 
Since natural birth made the Jews members of the Old 
Testament church, they were bound to retain their 



THE BETTER CHURCH UNDER NEW TESTAMENT. 403 

church membership as long as natural life continued, 
regardless of the multitude or heinousness of the sins • 
they might commit'; hence the only door through 
which a member of the Jewish church could have been 
expelled was that of natural death. Therefore none 
but those who committed capital sins could have been 
legally excommunicated, their excommunication hav- 
ing consisted of a stoning to death or execution by 
some other means. As spiritual birth is the door into 
the church of the New Testament, those who have 
been born of the Spirit retain their church member- 
ship as long as they retain their spiritual life. They 
can only retain their spiritual life so long as they 
refrain from committing sin, because we are told that 
**8in, when it is finished [committed], bringeth forth 
death." — Jas. 1:15. 

As only natural death ended membership in the Old 
Testament church, and every member of the Jewish 
nation, no matter how wicked, continued in the 
church until death, the Jewish church was an unholy 
church. But not so with the church of the New Testa- 
ment. Since spiritual death ends our membership in 
the church of Christ, and it is brought about by 
a single sin against God, no human being with the con- 
demnation of sin upon his soul can ever possess a mem- 
bership in the New Testament church; hence it must 
be a holy church. 

As the church of the Old Testament was merely 
human, or secular, in its nature, it was but a union of 



404 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

the bodies of the people, and with the death of its 
members ic ceased to exist; but the New Testament 
church being spiritual in its nature binds together the 
souls of men into a perfect unity in Christ; hence we 
read of the members of the New Testament church 
that they are "of one heart and one soul." — Acts 4:32. 
Physical death does not atfecfc oar membership in 
Christ's church, but we continue in it the same after 
death. God's church upon earth in the new diapensa- 
tion is the same in its nature as his churcn in 
heaven, or in other w^ords it is the same church that 
has come down from heaven. Well could the apostle 
Paul speak of "the whole family in heaven and earth.'' 
~Eph. 3:15. 

The government of the New Testament church, like 
its organization, is spiritual and divine. The officers 
are all appointed by God through the Holy Spirit. 
Seel Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11; Acts 13:1-3; 20:28. 
The discipline of Christ's church is the New Testa- 
ment; it is the only book of government that has been 
given by the Founder of the church; hence it is to be 
granted that he has not intended that we should have 
another, and I feel safe in saying that none who pos- 
sess a membership in Christ's church alone will ever 
need another. 



HUMAN ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATIONS. 405 

llUMA^s ECCLESIASTICAL OEGAXIZATIONS 

MODELED AFTER THE CHUECH OF 

THE OLD TESTAMEXT. 



As the church of Jesus Christ is a spiritual institu- 
tion, it is impossible for men to build an organization 
like it, because they can not manufacture spiritual 
things; but the church of Moses being of a secular 
nature is easily imitated; hence it is that every human 
t^ociety styled a church, is modeled after it. Men can 
not form human beings into a spiritual body, but they 
can tie them up in a secular manner like Moses did. 
They can not imitate the spiritual birth, the only door 
of entrance into the church of Christ, but they can build 
liuman societies and hold the children of their mem- 
bers to be members by virtue of natural birth, like 
Moses did in his church. This is pretty well carried 
out in Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Lutheranism, 
and several others of the older denominations. Those 
of the Protestant denominations in which men do not 
Ijecome members by natural birth, borrow the other 
door of admission into Moses' church, that of pros- 
clytism. A Jewish proselyte was a joiner of the 
Jewish church from another nation; and it is through 
the door of joining that every member of all the 
Protestant denominations has obtained membership 
excepting those mentioned bcjjfore who became mem- 
Ijers by natural birth. There is not a Protestant 
denomination which holds that spiritual birth wil^ 

27 



406 THE BETTER TESTAMEiiT. 

make a man a member of their institution, and can 
carry out their belief; hence it is very evident that 
none of them in this respect are modeled after the 
church of Christ. 

Protestantism differs from the Jewish church in 
regard to the door of excommunication; they expel 
members without killing them, but with respect to 
their faithful members, that which they hold to be the 
door out of their church is the same as the door out of 
Moses' institution; viz., natural death. Not a human 
organization on the face of the earth can hold its mem- 
bers after physical death, and they do not claim to. So, 
we see in this respect, also, they differ widely from the 
church of Jesus Christ. 

As spiritual death does not affect membership in tlie 
various human organizations, every individual who 
once joins their institution, retains his membership 
regardless of the sins he may commit, until lei^Mlly 
expelled or until physcial death; therefore none of 
these human institutions can be holy institutions. The 
majority of the members of the various human socie- 
ties have never discerned the church of Jesus Christ, 
and knowing only the human institutions, are led to be- 
lieve that there is no holy 3hurch upon earth; heuce 
they oppose the doctrine of a holy church. They are 
deserving of sympathy, because if they but understood 
the Xew Testament church they could not fail to see 
that it is holy, and that none but true Christians pos- 
sess a membership in it. 



HUMAN ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATIONS. 407 

The question might be asked, AYhat is the necessity 
of the human organizations? I would answer, There 
is absolutely no necessity for them, and if everybody 
discerned the church of the New Testament they 
would discard them. Had the Christians ever con- 
tinued to understand the church of Christ, they never 
would have made them. The mildest apology that I 
could offer for them is the misunderstanding of the 
Christian world. 

At least thirty thousand Christians have renounced 
all these human organizations and take a stand for tlie 
church of Jesus only. Those who do not discern the 
true church doubtless sincerely believe us to be in error; 
but we are not in error; we stand upon the only 
ecclesiastical rock. Everything else is sand. We have 
found the church described in the New Testament, 
and that it is governed by the Xew Testament. 

Those who do not see the true church are sincere in 
their belief that human societies are helpful to the 
advancement of Christianity, but with the spiritual 
light that God has given us we can see that they are a 
hindrance to the cause of Christ. They have been 
placed by men in the attitude to the people that should 
only be occupied by the church of Christ, and the 
masses have been instructed to believe that they col- 
lectiA^ely constitute the church of Christ; hence when 
poor sinners join these organizations, their consciences 
are somewhat eased with the thought that they now 
liave a membership in the church of God, an<l many of 



408 THE BETTER TESTAME.NT. 

them continue under this soothing deception until they 
pass into eternity, unsaved and lost forever. They are 
damned by the very ecclesiastical organization that is 
held up by the people as a soul-saving institution. 
Had it not been for the sect that gave them an empty 
profession of salvation, they might some time during 
their life have been led to Christ under the preaching 
of the gospel. Should we not therefore destroy all 
tliese human inventions and offer to the people only 
the church that Jesus has instituted, in which they 
CiUi not possess a membership except by possessing the 
grace of God in their hearts? 

We have seen in a former chapter, that from the 
days of Samuel to the time of Christ the Jews existed 
both as a church and as a state, and that the church and 
the state were united. This could be, since Moses' 
church was a secular institution; but such a union can 
never be affected betv/een the church of Christ and a 
political government; because it (the church of ('hrist) 
is of a spiritual nature. The world has been greatly 
harassed much of the time since the gospel was deliv- 
ered to man by a union of church and state. This 
has proved to be the most diabolical agent the devil 
has employed to propagate his work; but it was not a 
union of the state with the spiritual church of Christ, 
but with a secular institution of man. In their union 
of church and state, denominatioualism has also at- 
tempted to duplicate the church of Moses, 



JKi;rsAi.KM wntc/r is above. 400 

JERUSALEM WHICH IS ABOVE, OR THE NEW 
JERUSALEM. 



''But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the 
mother of us all." — Gal. 4:2G. 

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the 
temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I 
will write upon him the name of my God, and the 
name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, 
which Cometh down out of heaven from my God: and 
1 will write upon him my new name." — Rev. 3:12. 

It is evident that the Jerusalem mentioned in these 
texts is not that literal city which was the seat of gov- 
ernment to the Jewish people of ancient times, but a 
spiritual city. In the former of these texts Paul uses 
the expression, "Jerusalem which is above" in contra- 
distinction to literal Jerusalem. See verse 25. He 
has just been speaking in the preceding verses of the 
Old and New Testaments as the antitypes of the two 
wives of Abraham. Abraham's bond wife he considers 
a type of the Old Testament and his free wife, of the 
New Testament. The two Jerusalems he associates 
very closely with the two testament. The literal Jeru- 
salem he shows to have a close connection with the 
Old Testament; and the "Jerusalem which is above," 
with the New Testament. 

The New Jerusalem mentioned in the latter text is 
the same as the "Jerusalem which is above" in the 
former. The adjective "new" distinguishes it from 



410 THE I^ETTKK TESTA M!:NT. 

the literal Jerusalem, and the fact that it came down 
out of heaven from God proves it to be a spiritual 
city. The same spiritual Jerusalem is mentioned in 
the twelfth chapter of Hebrews, where it is again 
closely associated with the new covenant, as in the 
fourth chapter of Galatians. See verses 18-24. 

But what is the spiritual Jerusalem that pertains to 
the new covenant? To successfully answer this ques- 
tion, I must first show the relation of literal Jerusalem 
to the old covenant. During the sojourn of the Israel- 
ites in the wilderness, God spoke to Moses saying: 
"When ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which 
the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he 
giveth you rest f i om all your enemies round about, so 
that ye dwell in safety ; then there shall be a place 
which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his 
name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that 
I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacri- 
fices, your tithes, and the heave-offering of your hand, 
and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the 
Lord."— Dent. 12:10, 11. 

God here promised the Israelites that he would 
choose a special place of worship in the promised land, 
after they should once become settled in it; his name 
was to dwell in the chosen place, and to that chosen 
place they were to bring their burnt offerings and sacri- 
fices and tithes, and heave-offerings, and also their vows. 
In the year of release, which was every seventh year, 
they were commanded to assemble in that chosen place 



JERUSALEM WHICH IS ABOVE. 411 

to hear the reading of the law of Moses. Deal. 
?)l :9-ll. In the chosen place judgment was to be ren- 
dered concerning all matters of importance. Deut. 
IT :F^-12. Three times in a year feasts were to be kept 
in the chosen place, at whicli all males were required 
to be 2">resent; in the feast of unleavened bread, and 
iji the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles. 
Dent.. 16:16. In short, this chosen place was to be the 
scene and center of all Levitical worship. 

God did not choose this place of worship until the 
time of David, when he made choice of the city of 
Jerusalem. Prior to this they had but temporarily 
selected a place to worship. ''Since the day that I 
brought forth my people out of the land of Egypt I 
chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build a 
hou.se in, that my name might be there; neither chose 
I any man to be a ruler over my people Israel: but I 
have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; 
and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel." 
—2 Chron. 6:5, 6. 

Piom David to the time of Christ, Jerusalem was the 
chosen place for the Jewish people to worsliip, the 
house of God having been located there. But the 
prophets fore! old that in the Christian dispensation 
i]\'.'V.(' shor.ld be another house of God erected in another 
Jirvisalem. I will quote from the LXX. "The word 
which came to Esaias the son of x\mos concerning 
JiKh^a, aiul concerning Jerusalem. For in the las^ 
dn ys the mmintain of the Lord shall be glorious, and the 



412 tHE BETTER TEStAME^s't. 

house of God shall be on the top of the mountains, and 
it shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall 
come to it. And many nations shall go and say, 
Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, 
and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will tell 
us his way, and we will walk in it: for out of Sion shall 
go forth the law, and the word of the Lord out of 
Jerusalem." — Isa. 2:1-3. This same prophecy is 
found also in Micah 4:1, 2. 

It is here predicted that in the Christian dispensa- 
tion the house of God should be established on the top 
of the mountains, above the hills. Ft is a spiritual 
house of God that is here referred to, which was 
typified by the literal house of God, in literal Jerusa- 
lem. As the literal house of God was located in literal 
Jerusalem, it is not unreasonable to suppose that ths 
spiritual house of God would be located in spiritual 
Jerusalem; if therefore the spiritual house of God, of 
the Christian dispensation, stands on the top of the 
mountains, there must be a spiritual Jerusalem upon 
that exalted plane. This thought is corroborated by 
the Savior in Matt. 5 :14, where he speaks as though 
his followers dwelt in ''a city that is set on a hill." 
Observe also that the apostle John was carried away 
in the Spirit to a great and high mountain to view the 
spiritual Jerusalem. Rev. 21 :9, 10. By this time we can 
see that when Paul spoke of ''Jerusalem which is 
above" he referred to the spiritual Jerusalem that is 
located above the hills, in the Christian dispensation. 



JERUSALEM WHICH IS ABOVE. 413 

In the literal house of God, in literal Jerusalem, was 
the place to worship under the law of Moses; but in 
the spiritual house of God, in spiritual Jerusalem is 
the place to worship God under the gospel. The spir- 
itual house of God is the church of the living God. 
See 1 Tim. 3 :15. Spiritual Jerusalem signifies a state 
rather than a locality. This we may perceive from the 
conversation of Christ with the woman of Samaria. 
"The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou 
art a prophet. Our fathers worshiped in this moun- 
tian; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where 
men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, 
believe me, the hour cometh, when ve shall neither in 
this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, worship the 
Father. . . . But the hour cometh and now is, when 
the true worshipers shall worship the Father in Spirit 
and in truth: for trhe Father seeketh such to worship 
him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must 
worship him in spirit and in truth." — John 4:19-24. 
Jesus here shows that Jerusalem should no longer con- 
tinue to be set apart as a special place of worship, but 
that in the Christian dispensation God is to be wor- 
shiped universally in spirit and in truth. This is a 
proof that the Jerusalem to which we go to worship 
is a spiritual condition and not a locality. This lofty 
state in which the house of God is established is the 
plane of God's holiness, and to ascend unto the house 
of God, in the gospel dispensation, is to obtain sal- 
vation. 



414 THE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

The twenty-first chapter of Revelation gives us a 
beautiful description of the new Jerusalem, which 
many have supposed to represent heaven, while others 
have thought it represented a literal city to descend 
from heaven by and by; but after carefully examining 
the character of this city as described by the Revelator, 
I am confirmed in my belief that John saw in a heav- 
enly metaphor our blessed Xew Testament church in 
which blood-washed saints worship the Father in the 
gospel age. 

He calls the heavenly Jerusalem the bride, the 
Lamb's wife. Rev. 21:9. The Lamb is Christ. 
John 1 :29. The heavenly Jerusalem is therefore the 
wife of Christ. This is a striking proof that it is a 
metaphoric description of the Xew Testament church, 
because there is nothing else mentioned in the ISTew 
Testament unto which Christ is 'said to be married. 
But is his marriage with the church already consum- 
mated? If we can prove that it is, that will unques- 
tionably locate the holy Jerusalem in the present dis- 
pensation. I shall at once appeal to the testimony of 
the New Testament. As early as the time of John 
the Baptist Christ must have possessed a bride; because 
that prophet when speaking of him says, ''He that 
hath the bride is the bridegroom." — John 3:29. 
Jesus professed himself to be a bridegroom. "And 
Jesus said unto them. Can the children of the bride- 
chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with 
them? But the days will come when the bridegroom 



JEKTSALKM WJIJCH JS ABOVE. 415 



shall be taken from them, and thou shall they 
— Matt. 9:15. If Christ was already during the incar- 
nation a bridegroom, he was even at that early date 
married. 

But who was the bride? "For the husband is the 
head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the 
church." — Eph. 5:23. "Therefore as the church is 
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to to their 
own husbands in everything." — Ver. 24. "Husband>, 
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, 
and gave himself for it." — Ver. 25. "So ought men 
to love their wives as their own bodies. He thai 
loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet 
hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, 
even as the Lord the church : for we are members of 
his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." — Verses 
28-30. "For this cause shall a man leave his father 
and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they 
two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but 
I speak concerning Christ and the church." — Verses 
31 :32. In these verses Paul places the churcli in the 
same relation to Christ that the wife stands to the hus- 
band. As a true husbana, Christ is the head of the 
church, his wife, and the church is subject to him. lie 
loves hei, even to give his life for her. He nourisheth 
and cherisheth her, and she is of one body, flesh, and 
bone with him. Herein is fulfilled perfectly the holy 
marriage relation as set forth by our Savior in the 
gospels. Lest we should misunderstand him, the 



416 THE BETTEK TESTAMENT. 

apostle in verse 32 states directly that what he has 
been setting forth in regard to the relation that exists 
between husband and wife has been spoken concerning 
Christ and the church. So there is no doubt that the 
marriage of the church unto Christ is already consum- 
mated, and she is now his bride, and must therefore 
be tlie heavenly Jerusalem that John describes in 
Revelation. 

Ln Eom. 7:4 Paul again speaks of the church as hav- 
ing been married unto Christ. "Wherefore, my 
brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the 
body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, 
even to him who is raised from the dead, that we 
should bring forth fruit unto God." We shall not in 
the face of such plain scriptures question the fact that 
the marriage of the church unto Christ has already 
taken place. But let us again look at the Revelator's 
description of Christ's bride. He tells us that the wall 
of the city had twelve foundations and in them the 
names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev. 
21:14. Since rhe twelve apostles are the foundations 
in God's church, should we not consider this another 
striking proof that the church is the heavenly Jeru- 
salem John saw? 

The walls of this heavenly city described in verses 
12, 16-18 must be the very walls Isaiah spoke of when 
he prophesied saNing, '*In that day shall this song be 
sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city; 
salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks." — 



JEUUSALKM WHICH IS ABOVE. 411 

Isa. 26:1. "Thou shalt call thy walls salvation, and 
tliy gates praise." — Isa. 60:18. The prophet couhl 
not have had reference in these prophecies to the walls 
of literal Jerusalem. But since in the Xew Testament 
spiritual Jerusalem salvation from sin is obtained ami 
men within her walls are kept pure in God's sight, her 
walls must be the very fulfillment of Isaiah's proph- 
ecies. 

The Eevelator further tells us that the heavenly 
Jerusalem has gates on all sides: it has three gates on 
the east, and three on the west, three on the north, 
and three on the south side of the city. This signifies 
the abundant entrance into the church of God. As 
the city is a spiritual city, the walls are spiritual walls 
and the gates spiritual gates; and they signify that 
men from every condition in life can be redeemed and 
enter directly into the spiritual house of God in the 
new Jerusalem. These gates we are told shall not be 
shut at all by day, and we are told that there shall be 
no night in this city. Ver. 25. This signifies the 
continual opportunity for salvation that is offered unto 
the people in the Christian dispensation. 

Verse 27 tells us that "there shall in no wise eiiter 
into this heavenly Jerusalem anything that defileth, 
neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a 
lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of 
life;." This corresponds with Isaiali's prophecy of 
the Xew Testament cliurch in Isa. 26:2 — "Open ye 
the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the 



418 TFIE BETTER TESTAMENT. 

truth may enter in." Only those who have their 
names recorded in the Lamb's book of life can dwell 
within the new Jerusalem, as this book is the record of 
the Xevv Testament church. Heb. 12:23. We have 
in this another striking proof that the new Jerusalem 
is the church of God. 

In verse 18 the Revelator tells us that the wall of the 
city was built of jasper, and the city itself of pure gold 
like unto clear glass. In this metaphor the purity of 
the New Testament church is beautifully represented. 

The Lamb of God, we are told in verse 23, was the 
light of this city. The Lamb is the light in the church 
of God; therefore, we consider this another proof that 
the church is the heavenly Jerusalem. 

In the twenty-second chapter the Revelator describes 
tlie pure river of water of life flowing through this 
heavenly Jerusalem, which proceeds out of the throne 
of God and of the Lamb. All spiritual people can 
readily see in this a beautiful description of God's 
fountain of salvation unto which we have access by 
faith in Christ. 

The tree of life is said to be growing in this river 
and on each of its banks. Ver. 2. In Eev. 2:7 all 
that overcome are promised access to this tree of life, 
which, it is there stated, stands in the midst of the para- 
dise of God. This figure is derived from the fact that 
the tree of life stood in the original paradise in which 
Adam and Eve dwelt. They were prohibited from 
eating of the fruit of that tree after the fall. Hut 



JERUSALEM WHICH JS ABOVE. 419 

iiDvv in Christ we again partake of that tree of life in 
1 .spiritual sense; for Christ is our tree of life. The 
leaves of this tree, we are told, are for the healing of 
the nations. Rev. 22:2. It would be ridiculous to 
say that the liealiiig that comes from the leaves of thi« 
tree of life is reserved until after the Savior's second 
advent, for the world will cease to be divided into 
nations at that time. In this we have a striking proof 
that we have access to the heavenly Jerusalem in the 
present dispensation, and we have healing not only 
for our souls from siu, but also for our bodies from 
disease and sickness. 

The location of Christ's second advent at the close 
of John's description of the heavenly Jerusalem 
(Rev. 22:7) is another proof that we have access to 
this glorious city in this dispensation. 

The wiping away of all tears from the eyes is under- 
stood by all those who possess the true joys of sal- 
vation. 

The saying that there shall be no more death in this 
heavenly Jerusalem is fulfilled unto us in the present 
dispensation; because it is written that Christ hath 
abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality 
to light through the gospel. 2 Tim. 1:10. It is spir- 
itual death to which the Revelator referred when he 
said there should be no death in the heavenly Jerusa- 
lem, and it is spiritual death in sin that Christ has 
abolished. He has given us in its stead that glorious 
spiritual life within our souls thnt (Muibles us t'> live i\ 



A'2n THi: BETTER TESTAMENT. 

sublime and holy life in this world. Surely we can see 
uy this time that the heavenly Jerusalem appeared at 
the beginning of the present dispensation, and is the 
habitation of all those who dwell in the church of God. 



THE END. 



r/.7 ■^^^}pr^^f^-wK^^^ '-■'■'.''.? 



M 



K*?C^ 



wm 




;\^^ 



